Category: Agriculture

  • MIL-OSI Europe: EU Fact Sheets – The common agricultural policy strategic plans regulation – 12-05-2025

    Source: European Parliament 2

    Under the common agricultural policy (CAP), each EU Member State is required to draw up a CAP strategic plan (CSP) setting out how it will direct the CAP’s funding instruments (i.e. farmer income support and market and rural development measures) to address its local needs and achieve tangible results on EU-level objectives. This delivery model, established in 2021, provides for greater flexibility and subsidiarity in assigning responsibilities to the Member States.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Quarantine rules for cats, dogs reset

    Source: Hong Kong Information Services

    The Agriculture, Fisheries & Conservation Department (AFCD) announced today that new quarantine arrangements for cats and dogs imported from the Mainland will be implemented from June 3.

     

    Starting June 3, the Mainland will be included in Group IIIA. This means that cats and dogs imported from the Mainland that meet all the pre-requisites will have their quarantine period significantly reduced from the current 120 days to 30 days upon arrival in Hong Kong.

     

    The new arrangements will facilitate animal owners in bringing their pet cats and dogs from the Mainland to Hong Kong.

     

    Applicants who import such pets from the Mainland must ensure that the animals comply with the requirements of Group IIIA and submit the necessary proof to the AFCD.

     

    The animals must be implanted with a conforming microchip, hold a valid vaccination certificate for rabies and designated infectious diseases, and possess an animal health certificate issued by Mainland official veterinarians.

     

    Furthermore, the animals must obtain satisfactory results from rabies antibody titer testing conducted at an AFCD-approved laboratory on a blood sample taken not less than 90 days and not more than one year before departure.

     

    To ensure strict implementation of the relevant quarantine regulations, the AFCD has agreed with Mainland authorities that Shenzhen Customs veterinarians will issue the animal health certificates in the first phase of implementation.

     

    Detailed requirements for issuing such certificates by the Mainland can be obtained from Shenzhen Customs.

     

    Click here for more details of the quarantine arrangements and the application procedures for importing cats and dogs from the Mainland.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI: Altus Group Releases its Q1 2025 Pan-European Dataset Analysis on CRE Valuation Trends

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LONDON, May 13, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Altus Group Limited (“Altus”) (TSX: AIF), a leading provider of commercial real estate (“CRE”) intelligence, today released its Q1 2025 Pan-European dataset analysis on European property market valuation trends.

    Each quarter, Altus Group centralizes and aggregates CRE valuation data for the European market, pulling insights into the factors driving commercial property valuations. The Q1 2025 aggregate dataset included Pan-European open-ended diversified funds, representing €29 billion in assets under management. The funds cover 17 countries and primarily span the industrial, office, retail and residential property sectors.

    “We’re encouraged to see the slow but steady growth across all major property sectors for the third consecutive quarter, reinforcing cautious optimism in the European real estate market,” said Phil Tily, Senior Vice President at Altus Group. “The resilience of residential and industrial assets reflects ongoing investor appetite for sectors underpinned by strong cashflows and rental growth. While macroeconomic conditions remain mixed, the stabilization in yields and improved fundamentals point to a maturing recovery cycle across the region.”

    Commercial property values across the Pan-European valuation dataset increased for the third consecutive quarter in Q1, rising 0.8% over Q4 and 2% year-over-year. All sectors are seeing gains, albeit with a mixed set of results from a yield and cashflow perspective.

    Key highlights by sector include:

    • Residential: The residential sector was the top performer in Q1 with a 1.5% value increase over Q4 2024. The improvement continued to be driven by comparatively strong cash flow fundamentals with above-average rent growth for the second consecutive quarter. The Netherlands was the strongest market in Q1, supported by increased market rents.
    • Industrial: After leading performance in Q4 2024, the industrial sector saw modest growth in Q1 2025, up 0.8% over Q4 2024. Yields held steady over the quarter, but a further strengthening of cashflows and an increase in market rents and contract rents helped industrial values rise marginally for a fourth consecutive quarter. While values improved across all industrial market, Italy and Spain had the largest gains in Q1.
    • Office: Office values rose 0.8% in Q1 2025 over Q4 2024, up for three consecutive quarters. Yield improvement and strengthening cash flows contributed to the rise in values. France saw the largest valuation gains, whereas Germany and the U.K. experienced declines in value this quarter.
    • Retail: The retail sector also saw modest growth in Q1, with values rising 0.5% over Q4 2024. Rising yields held back values for shopping centres in Q1, while declining yields boosted values for high street shops and supermarkets. Retail warehouses continue to be the top performing asset within the sector over the past year.
    • Other: Outside of the main sectors, student accommodation assets surpassed hotels and led performance this quarter, with values rising by 3.0% over Q4 2024.

    To download a review of the sector trends by asset class, please click here.

    About Altus Group

    Altus connects data, analytics, and expertise to deliver the intelligence necessary to drive optimal CRE performance.  The industry’s top leaders rely on our market-leading solutions and expertise to power performance and mitigate risk. Our global team of ~2,000 experts are making a lasting impact on an industry undergoing unprecedented change – helping shape the cities where we live, work, and build thriving communities. For more information about Altus (TSX: AIF) please visit www.altusgroup.com

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Lambe
    Director, Global Communications, Altus Group
    +1-416-641-9787
    elizabeth.lambe@altusgroup.com

    The MIL Network

  • Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan to review central schemes in Raipur, attend housing program in Ambikapur

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Union Minister of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare and Rural Development, Shivraj Singh Chouhan, will review the implementation of central government schemes in Chhattisgarh during his visit to Raipur on Tuesday.

    According to an official release by the Ministry of Rural Development, the Union Minister will conduct the review meeting at the Naya Raipur Secretariat. Prior to the meeting, he will participate in a plantation drive on the Secretariat premises.

    Following the review, Chouhan is scheduled to visit Ambikapur, where he will take part in the “Mor Awas Mor Adhikar” program at the PG College ground.

    As the Chief Guest of the event, the Union Minister will distribute house keys to beneficiaries under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Gramin) and PM Janman schemes. He will also lay the foundation stone (bhoomi pujan) for housing units to be constructed under these schemes and distribute sanction letters to new beneficiaries.

    A key highlight of the program will be the Grih Pravesh ceremony for 51,000 new homeowners under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. In addition, self-help group members and Lakhpati Didis who have demonstrated exemplary contributions in rural development will be felicitated.

    The event will be presided over by Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai. Other dignitaries attending as special guests include Union Minister of State for Housing and Urban Affairs Tokhan Sahu, Deputy Chief Ministers Vijay Sharma and Arun Sao, and Assembly Speaker Dr. Raman Singh. Finance Minister O.P. Choudhary, Agriculture Minister Ram Vichar Netam, Health Minister Shyam Bihari Jaiswal, and Women and Child Development Minister Laxmi Rajwade will also be present.

  • MIL-OSI USA: Grassley, Hoeven Reintroduce FARMER Act to Strengthen Farm Safety Net, Increase Access to Higher Levels of Crop Insurance Coverage

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley

    WASHINGTON – Senate Agriculture Committee Members Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.) reintroduced the Federal Agriculture Risk Management Enhancement and Resilience (FARMER) Act to strengthen crop insurance and make higher levels of coverage more affordable for producers.

    “A strong crop insurance program is vital to the success of America’s farming operations. Yet, when disaster strikes, many farmers find themselves without adequate coverage. By ensuring farmers have access to the coverage they need, our bill would provide certainty and help alleviate the need for costly, future ad-hoc federal assistance,” Grassley said.

    Specifically, the legislation would:

    1. Increase premium support for higher levels of crop insurance coverage, which would enhance affordability and reduce the need for future ad-hoc disaster assistance;
    2. Improve the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) by increasing premium support and expanding the coverage level, providing producers with an additional level of protection;
    3. Direct the Risk Management Agency (RMA) to conduct a study to improve the effectiveness of SCO in large counties, and;
    4. Not require producers to choose between purchasing enhanced crop insurance coverage or participating in Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs, giving them flexibility to make decisions that work best for their operations. 

    Additional cosponsors include Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.), along with Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.).

    The legislation is supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, Crop Insurance and Reinsurance Bureau, Crop Insurance Professionals Association, Farm Credit Council, Midwest Council on Agriculture, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National Sunflower Association, USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council, U.S. Beet Sugar Association, U.S. Canola Association and U.S. Durum Growers Association.

    Full text of the legislation can be found HERE. A one-pager can be found HERE.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: “China is the best era for entrepreneurship for me” – Russian entrepreneur

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    TIANJIN, May 13 (Xinhua) — Sipping coffee in her office in the Tianjin Pilot Free Trade Zone (FTZ), 36-year-old Russian Svetlana Olkhovikova is intently checking information on orders from partners in Russia, Uzbekistan and other countries.

    With her excellent command of Chinese and experience in foreign trade, she established and registered two foreign trade companies in Tianjin, a port city in northern China.

    Tianjin Ruidehe Machinery Trading Company, founded in September 2023, is engaged in the export of agricultural machinery, and Hesu Biopharmaceutical Company, established in March 2024, is engaged in cross-border trade in medical equipment and components.

    “Both companies have already established cooperation with enterprises in more than 20 countries and regions around the world, including Russia, Kazakhstan and the Republic of Korea,” Svetlana said fluently in Chinese.

    “China has been the best era for entrepreneurship for me,” she added. From choosing an office location to registering companies, from extending a work visa to home service when opening a bank account, she was always amazed by the efficiency of the local government and its humane approach to entrepreneurs.

    As a foreign entrepreneur, she had to learn Chinese laws and the tax system, which was not easy, but the government’s service provision gave her confidence and peace of mind.

    “My grandfather used to say that the hospitality of the Chinese is like a flame that never goes out. By creating my business in Tianjin, I finally realized that this is not an exaggeration, but a reality,” the businesswoman shared.

    In choosing China for business, she valued not only the favorable business environment, but also the country’s mega-market, sophisticated production and supply chain system, and ever-improving conditions for innovation.

    “The Chinese market is huge, many quality products are becoming increasingly popular abroad. People from all over the world can find many development opportunities here,” said S. Olkhovikova. During her entrepreneurial activities, she deepened her understanding of China’s economic development and strengthened her confidence in the “Made in China” brand.

    “Our cooperation with Chinese companies is going very smoothly. Chinese partners are pragmatic and efficient, produce inexpensive and high-quality goods, and offer customized solutions – all thanks to China’s powerful production capabilities and high level of professionalism,” the entrepreneur stated with confidence.

    Svetlana’s family, believing that China has enormous development potential, fully supports her business ventures. “My uncle runs an agricultural processing company in Russia, and my company in China can supply him with high-quality equipment, especially powerful tractors,” she continued.

    Svetlana spent her childhood in a village a few hundred kilometers from Moscow. Her father was a farmer, her mother taught at school, and Svetlana, who was raised by her grandmother, often heard stories about China. “My grandmother said that the Chinese are kind, my grandfather told me about the Confucian principle of ‘the joy of meeting a friend who has come from afar’, and my uncle advised: ‘Only by acquiring more knowledge can we expand our horizons’,” she said.

    In 2005, S. Olkhovikova entered Voronezh State University /VSU/ to major in International Relations. Learning about China from books and lectures, she became interested in this country.

    In 2008, she first came to China on a six-month Chinese language program organized by Qingdao University and VSU. Later, while working for a Russian trading company, she became even more fascinated with China thanks to active business contacts with Chinese partners.

    Years later, after careful consideration, Svetlana decided to pursue an MBA at Tianjin University. She was attracted by the university’s rich history and recognized the practical value of its curriculum for researching China’s economic development. She visited agricultural machinery manufacturing plants in Tianjin to explore the potential for Sino-Russian cooperation in the agricultural sector through the “customization of production plus localization of services” format.

    Now that she has established her business in China, she continues to implement this idea. Despite being very busy, Svetlana continues to persistently study Chinese and get to know the country better.

    “There are many opportunities in China. The openness and inclusiveness here provide fertile ground for enterprising people from all over the world. The Chinese say that if the circumstances are right, expressed in the right time, the right place and the support of the people, people around you will lend a helping hand if you boldly seize the opportunities of the times,” she added.

    “I believe that a wonderful future awaits me. And I am ready to contribute to the promotion of cooperation between Russia and China,” Svetlana said. -0-

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Community-run food co-ops can reduce food insecurity and boost healthy diets, research shows

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katherine Kent, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Wollongong

    alicja neumiler/Shutterstock

    As grocery prices continue to rise, many Australians are struggling to afford healthy food and are looking for alternatives to the big supermarket chains.

    The recent supermarkets inquiry, run by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, confirmed Australia’s grocery sector is highly concentrated, with limited competition and rising retail margins. In regional and remote areas, consumers often face higher prices and fewer choices.

    One option growing in popularity around the country is the community food co-operative, or “food co-op”.

    Food co-ops are local not-for-profit or member-owned groups where people join together to buy food in bulk, usually straight from farmers or wholesalers. These co-ops can take different forms, including shops, neighbourhood-based hubs, or box delivery models. They typically offer a range of foods such as fresh fruit and vegetables, bread, dairy products, eggs and pantry staples.

    By co-ordinating their orders, members can reduce food costs, limit packaging waste, and avoid supermarket markups. Co-ops can also help lower transport emissions by reducing long supply chains.

    We’ve been researching the benefits of food co-ops. We’ve found this model could reduce food insecurity and increase people’s intake of fruit and vegetables.

    How are food co-ops run?

    Some co-ops are owned and run by their members. Any surplus or profits are generally reinvested into the co-op or shared through lower prices, improved services, or support for local community initiatives.

    Other co-ops are managed by not-for-profit organisations focused on improving food access for whole communities.

    More recently, digital platforms and apps have made it even easier for people to start or join co-ops and connect with local growers.

    Regardless of the model, co-ops are guided by values of co-operation, fairness and community benefit, rather than profit.

    Digital platforms have made it easier to get involved in food co-ops.
    Cottonbro studio/Pexels

    What does the research say?

    We recently published a study which adds to a growing body of evidence showing food co-ops can play an important role in improving diet and reducing food insecurity.

    Food insecurity is when someone doesn’t have reliable access to affordable, nutritious food. It can mean skipping meals, eating less fresh produce, relying on cheap processed foods, or experiencing ongoing stress about being able to afford groceries.

    We surveyed more than 2,200 members of Box Divvy, a community-based food co-op operating across New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. Within this co-op, members join local “hubs”, pool their orders for groceries through an app, and collect their food from a nearby coordinator.

    To measure food security, we used an internationally recognised survey that asks about things such as running out of food or skipping meals due to cost.

    Before joining the co-op, more than 50% of surveyed members were classified as “food insecure”. This is well above the national average (estimated to be around 22%). It suggests many people turning to food co-ops are already under significant financial pressure.

    After joining, food insecurity dropped by nearly 23%. The rate of severe food insecurity – where people skip meals and regularly experience hunger – more than halved.

    These changes were accompanied by improved diets. We asked participants to report how many serves of fruit and vegetables they usually ate in a day. On average, members increased their vegetable intake by 3.3 serves per week and their fruit intake by 2.5 serves.

    The benefits were even more pronounced for people experiencing severe food insecurity, who tend to have poorer diets overall. They ate 5.5 more serves of vegetables and 4.4 more serves of fruit per week while using the co-op.

    These are meaningful improvements that bring people closer to meeting national dietary guidelines. This matters because eating more fruit and vegetables is linked to a lower risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers.

    Our study found people ate more fruit and vegetables after joining the co-op.
    Davor Geber/Shutterstock

    Other research has reflected similar findings. A 2020 Sydney-based study found co-op members were more likely to meet the recommended servings of fruit and vegetables than non-members.

    Another study of The Community Grocer, a Melbourne-based social enterprise, found their weekly markets offered produce around 40% cheaper than nearby retailers and improved healthy food access for culturally diverse and low-income customers.

    Internationally, a Canadian study of a community-based food box program – similar in structure to some co-ops – reported higher fruit and vegetable intake among regular users. It found a decline in intake for those who stopped using the service.

    In Wales, disadvantaged communities that used co-ops reported better access to fresh produce. Similarly in New Zealand, co-op participants reported better access to healthy food.

    In qualitative research, people who have experienced food insecurity say co-ops offer a more dignified alternative to food relief by offering choice and control over what’s on the table.

    Food co-ops can offer a cheaper alternative to shopping at large supermarkets.
    Denys Kurbatov/Shutterstock

    Where to next?

    Despite clear benefits, food co-ops remain largely overlooked in Australian policy. This is at a time when national conversations about price gouging and supermarket power highlight the need for viable, community-based alternatives.

    Meanwhile, food co-ops also face operational challenges. For example, regulatory requirements can vary significantly between local councils and states. This makes it difficult to establish, scale or replicate successful co-ops.

    Government support could help co-ops grow where they’re needed most. Some measures might include:

    • seed funding and small grants to establish co-ops in low-income communities
    • subsidised memberships or vouchers for eligible households
    • investment in digital tools and logistics to support efficient operations, particularly in rural and remote areas
    • simplifying regulatory processes.

    As the Feeding Australia strategy develops under the Albanese government, there’s an opportunity to consider how community models such as food co-ops could complement broader national efforts to improve food security and strengthen local food systems.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Community-run food co-ops can reduce food insecurity and boost healthy diets, research shows – https://theconversation.com/community-run-food-co-ops-can-reduce-food-insecurity-and-boost-healthy-diets-research-shows-256100

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Tuberville, Moran Work to Support Local Broadcasters

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Tommy Tuberville (Alabama)
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) joined U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) in sending a letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr urging him to modernize ownership regulations to empower local broadcasters so that they may compete with today’s media giants.
    “The fast-evolving media marketplace has made broadcast ownership regulations in urgent need of modernization,” the Senators wrote. “By modernizing broadcast ownership restrictions, the FCC can empower broadcasters to fulfill their essential role in American democracy, foster local journalism, and benefit local communities and the public interest.”
    “Now is the time for swift FCC action to level the playing field for local broadcasters by modernizing the broadcast ownership rules. As newspapers continue to shutter across our country, local broadcasting remains the last bastion of trusted news for local communities. But creating news requires substantial resources: without the opportunity to combine or expand operations, broadcasters struggle to invest in journalism, retain sufficient newsroom staff, and strain to compete against their unregulated global Big Tech competitors,” they continued.
    Sens. Tuberville and Moran were joined by Sens. John Barrasso (R-WY), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), John Boozman (R-AR), Ted Budd (R-NC), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Susan Collins (R-ME), John Cornyn (R-TX), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), John Curtis (R-UT), Steve Daines (R-MT), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John Hoeven (R-ND), James Lankford (R-OK), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Tim Sheehy (R-MT), Tim Scott (R-SC), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and Todd Young (R-IN) in signing the letter. 
    Read full text of the letter below or here. 
    “Dear Chairman Carr,
    We urge you to modernize the FCC’s broadcast ownership rules to enable local broadcasters to compete with today’s media giants.
    The fast-evolving media marketplace has made broadcast ownership regulations in urgent need of modernization. Such regulations originated in the 1940s, and while the FCC has made modest adjustments since then, broadcast ownership rules today remain nearly the same as they were in the 1990s. Despite modest tweaks, these rules fail to account for the rise in digital platforms, streaming services, smartphones, and social media. Local broadcasters now vie for audience, content, and advertising not just with each other, but with the world’s largest tech companies. The regulations, designed for a bygone era, no longer reflect this society.
    Technology firms have reshaped how Americans access news, entertainment, and vital information, dominating the media marketplace in ways that threaten the survival of local broadcasters. Yet broadcasters remain unmatched in delivering trusted, accurate reporting – a role more critical than ever as newspapers vanish nationwide. Surveys consistently show Americans trust local news above all other sources. From holding governments accountable to boosting civic engagement and providing lifesaving updates during crises – whether public safety threats or severe weather – broadcasters are first to respond and last to leave. They do so, however, under a regulatory burden that ties one hand behind their back.
    Now is the time for swift FCC action to level the playing field for local broadcasters by modernizing the broadcast ownership rules. As newspapers continue to shutter across our country, local broadcasting remains the last bastion of trusted news for local communities. But creating news requires substantial resources: without the opportunity to combine or expand operations, broadcasters struggle to invest in journalism, retain sufficient newsroom staff, and strain to compete against their unregulated global Big Tech competitors. By modernizing broadcast ownership restrictions, the FCC can empower broadcasters to fulfill their essential role in American democracy, foster local journalism, and benefit local communities and the public interest.
    We encourage you to act swiftly. Updating these rules will strengthen local journalism, enhance public interest, and ensure broadcasters can compete in a digital age, not just survive it.
    Sincerely,”
    Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Tuberville, Barrasso Push for Pro-Growth Tax Reductions, Lower Prices for Small Businesses

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Tommy Tuberville (Alabama)
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) joined U.S. Senator John Barrasso in introducing The Growing America’s Small Businesses and Manufacturing Act. This legislation will boost investment in further developing America’s manufacturing capabilities and help small businesses, farmers, and producers purchase the equipment and supplies they need to build their operations and support their employees. 
    Specifically, this bill will reduce the tax burden for business owners purchasing equipment—including machinery, farming equipment, energy infrastructure, building upgrades, commercial vehicles, mining equipment, and more. This allows business owners to invest more into employee salaries, materials, and other critical business expenditures. 
    “I’ve said it many times—small businesses are the heart and soul of the American economy,” said Sen. Tuberville. “Enabling Alabama’s over 420,000 small businesses to thrive is one of my top priorities here in Washington. Small businesses face an uphill challenge with heightened regulation and insane prices. Reducing taxes for these business owners will go a long way in lifting the burden they often face when purchasing crucial equipment needed to keep their doors open.”
    “Wyoming’s small businesses are what keeps our economy going strong. We want to make sure they have every opportunity to succeed,” said Sen. Barrasso. “Right now, they face an uphill battle with high prices and a mountain of new regulations. The Growing America’s Small Businesses and Manufacturing Act will go a long way in helping Wyoming’s farmers, ranchers and small businesses expand their operations, better compete and hire more workers.” 
    Sens. Tuberville and Barrasso are joined by Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Katie Britt (R-AL), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), John Hoeven (R-ND), James Lankford (R-OK), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Tim Sheehy (R-MT), and Todd Young (R-IN) in cosponsoring the legislation.
    National Association of Manufacturers, National Federation of Independent Business, Restore American Investment Now (RAIN) Coalition, Business Roundtable, USTelecom, American Forest & Paper Association, American Exploration & Production Council, National Restaurant Association, Equipment Leasing and Finance Association, National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association, Small Business Investor Alliance, American Car Rental Association, National Tooling and Machining Association, Forging Industry Association, American Mold Builders Association, Independent Electrical Contractors, Industrial Fasteners Institute, Precision Machined Products Association, Non-Ferrous Founders’ Society, North American Die Casting Association, and Precision Metalforming Association endorsed the legislation.
    Read full text of the legislation here. 
    BACKGROUND:
    The Growing America’s Small Businesses and Manufacturing Actdelivers two pro-growth tax proposals that will boost investment in capital-intensive industries like manufacturing, energy production, and agriculture.
    Expanded Business Interest Deduction:
    The first reform addresses the additional limitation on business interest deductions that went into effect in 2022, restoring business flexibility and investment potential.
    The bill revises the limitation from 30% of a business’s Earnings Before Interest and Taxes (EBIT), back to 30% of Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, Amortization, and depletion (EBITDA).
    This protects businesses from being punished for investing in new machinery, capital equipment, mining, drilling, and research and development (R&D).
    Enhanced Small Business Expensing:
    The second provision expands Section 179, which allows taxpayers to deduct the cost of certain business assets in the year they are purchased rather than depreciating them over time.
    Under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the maximum deduction amount was increased to $1 million from $500,000, helping small businesses acquire the equipment needed to expand operations.
    The bill builds on this success by lifting the deduction cap to $2.5 million, accelerating small businesses’ access to capital.
    The provision covers a wide range of eligible expenses, including machinery, mining tools, farming implements, energy production equipment, commercial vehicles, building upgrades, and other critical investments.
    MORE:
    Tuberville, Colleagues Celebrate Small Businesses During Small Business Week
    Tuberville, Crapo Introduce Legislation to Level Playing Field for Alabama Sporting Equipment Businesses
    Tuberville Reintroduces Legislation to Repeal Corporate Transparence Act, Protect Small Businesses
    Tuberville Fights to Give Small Businesses a Tax Break
    Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Growing NZ – now and for the long term

    Source: NZ Music Month takes to the streets

    Tēna koutou kātoa. Greetings everyone. Thanks for coming.

    Thank you Sharesies for making the space available.

    You are exactly the sort of business we need more of to create opportunities for the next generation – Sharesies was started by smart people, who identified a gap in the market, harnessed technology and went about changing the way in which many New Zealanders invest.

    In just a few years you’ve grown from a tiny operation employing a handful of people to a business worth more than half a billion dollars, employing more than 200 people and expanding its reach to Australia. Hopefully, over time you’ll go further. 

    That’s a good news story for the people who work here, for the communities your incomes support, for the customers you serve and for our economy as a whole.  

    Sharesies is also an inspiration to other Kiwi entrepreneurs, including many in New Zealand’s booming Fin-Tech sector, which grew more than 20 per cent in the past year.

    I want to see more successes like this in New Zealand. When New Zealand entrepreneurs and startups do well, they create more and better paying jobs, more tax revenue to support government services, and more opportunities for us all.  

    That mission: driving economic growth and creating the conditions for business success, is at the heart of this year’s Government Budget.  

    Let me be clear, I don’t want growth just for growth’s sake, it’s much more than numbers on a chart for me. I want growth so that our kids, and future New Zealanders can enjoy the better choices, opportunities and standard of living we all aspire to and that too many Kiwis are missing out on today.

    On Thursday next week I’ll set out the full details of our Budget.  It will detail the Government’s specific spending and revenue choices, key new infrastructure investments, the path for borrowing and debt and our plans for strengthening the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy. I’m looking forward to delivering it.

    In a recent speech I detailed the difficult context in which the Government is delivering this year’s Budget.  New Zealand has gone through a tough few years of high inflation, high interest rates and little to no real growth. The Government has been running big deficits and accumulating debt and just as our economic recovery has gotten underway global events have conspired to make things harder.  

    That’s just reality. We can’t wish it away. Nor should we use it as an excuse to shy away from making choices now that will set New Zealand up better for the longer-term. 

    Today I want to talk a bit more about that longer-term picture and detail one specific Budget initiative that shows the Government’s commitment to sustained and long-term growth. 

    Because Budgets shouldn’t just be about the short term – who is getting what. Yes, there are a number of initiatives in the Budget designed to address the immediate issues of the here and now.   

    I am acutely conscious of the cost of living challenges many Kiwis are facing today and the hard yards so many people have gone through over these past few years. It’s essential that our Budget sustains the government services and supports they rely on, even though money is tighter than ever. Our Budget is built on a series of careful choices to ensure that’s possible, that we provide the funding needed for health, education, other vital public services and essential social supports.  

    But, as a responsible Government, we also need to be thinking ahead and addressing the structural challenges confronting our country. Our Budget also takes careful steps to do that, and that’s what I want to speak a bit more about today.  

    There are three key long-term challenges for New Zealand that  I spend a lot of time thinking about: They are productivity, social mobility and the ageing of the population.

    These are issues we need to be awake to now, lest we make life much harder for the people who follow us.  

    Let me make a few remarks about each of these challenges.

    I’ll start with productivity. Productivity is a key indicator of economic performance.  

    The most common measure of productivity is labour productivity which measures output per unit of time worked. 

    In New Zealand labour productivity has averaged just 0.3 per cent a year over the past 10 years. That is low by historic standards and low in comparison with our international peers.

    There’s no doubt Kiwis work hard, and in fact we work relatively big hours. Our challenge historically has been that we just don’t generate as much for that effort as those in some other countries. 

    Our labour productivity levels rank near the bottom of OECD countries, well behind those in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. 

    This rankles me. Not just because I’m competitive by nature, but because I think New Zealand has so much intrinsically going for it when compared to those countries. New Zealand can and must do better in the productivity race. 

    Why does low productivity matter? Because productivity determines how competitive our businesses are. The more competitive businesses are, the more people they can hire and the more money they can pay in salaries and wages. That in turn determines how fast our country can grow, and the revenue we have available for investing in the things that matter – like cancer drugs, education programmes, hospitals and Police.

    What are the causes of New Zealand’s low productivity rates?

    Treasury identifies three key problems. 

    First is low capital intensity, that is the machinery, tools and technology available per worker. More capital per worker typically means higher productivity and wages. The increase in New Zealand’s capital intensity has slowed over time from 1.9 per cent per year between 1997 and 2008 to 0.7 per cent between 2012 and 2023. Basically, our workers have less access to the machinery, innovation and technology that would allow them to be more productive. Our Budget will take steps to address that. 

    Second is low rates of foreign direct investment. This restricts the access Kiwi businesses have to the capital they need to grow and the world-leading know-how they need to thrive.  It slows uptake of innovation and best practices. Our Budget will take steps to address those issues too.  

    Third is export intensity. By international standards relatively few New Zealand businesses derive large portions of their income from exports. This reduces the scale of New Zealand businesses, competition and opportunities to learn. 

    The good news is, despite all the global shenanigans playing out, New Zealand is in the midst of an export-led economy recovery. Dairy farmers, horticulturalists, meat producers, all are doing well. In recent years New Zealand entrepreneurs have broken new ground in fields like space, film and accounting software. 

    Our Government is ambitious to build on this export success – with a stretch goal of doubling New Zealand’s exports by 2030.  Our Budget will take further steps to drive that work forward. 

    The thing with all these underlying productivity challenges is that there’s no quick fix, or easy road to success. It’s about doing lots of things well, over successive Budgets, keeping our eyes on the big prize while we deal with the here and now. 

    Budget initiatives in this area won’t make your household budget bigger today, but, over time, they are essential to growing the household budgets we have in future. 

    The next thing big challenge I want to talk about is social mobility. It’s a very Kiwi concept. The idea that no matter what background you come from, ours should be a country where with hard work and good choices you can have the opportunity to succeed.  

    That’s why our Government is putting so much emphasis on improving education achievement in our schools. Getting back to the basics of reading, writing and maths. And financial literacy too! Those skills are tickets to the game of life. We owe it to each and every Kiwi kid to make sure they leave school with those critical skills. 

    A desire to improve social mobility is also why our Government is revitalising the social investment approach developed by my predecessor Bill English. 

    Successive governments have spent huge sums trying to tackle the entrenched disadvantage that blights lives, pushes up costs for other New Zealanders and fuels criminal offending. 

    In addition to core social supports, government agencies collectively spend around $7 billion per year buying social services designed to deliver better lives for those with particularly challenging lives.

    However, despite the best intentions of all involved, this expenditure cannot be described as a success. There are some fantastic examples of lives being turned around, but the overall picture is grim. Too many Kiwis are trapped in cycles of inter-generational disadvantage.  We are spending more on ambulances at the bottom of the cliff than fences at the top. 

    Data now give us a very good ideal of those at greatest risk. We also know that intervening early increases the prospect of success. There are some incredible community and iwi organisations who know what to do, but too often they’re held back by the frustrations of government bureaucracy and short-termism. 

    We can do much much better here.  

    Shifting a young New Zealander off a life of welfare dependency and, potentially criminal offending, greatly reduces future costs for everyone else. But even more importantly it gives that New Zealander a chance to lead a fulfilling, productive life. We want that for all our kids.

    Later this week I’ll announce an initiative in this year’s Budget that is designed to do just that.  

    The third big challenge I think about is demographic change, more specifically the ageing of our population. 

    Kiwis are living longer – this is something to celebrate, but it also has an economic consequence as we seek to ensure people have the income and financial security they need in retirement. 

    There’s two things I think about here: one is KiwiSaver and the other is Government Superannuation. Let me make a few comments about each. 

    I’m delighted to see how many Kiwis are embracing KiwiSaver as a way of saving – for a first home and to supplement their income in retirement. 

    KiwiSaver membership is high – with more than 3 million members, representing around 96% of the working age population.  Fund balances differ but most working Kiwis choose to make regular contributions to their funds, matched by contributions from their employers.  

    KiwiSaver has become an increasingly important tool for people choosing to buy a first home – with around 42,000 people using their KiwiSaver funds for this purpose in the past year.

    It’s also an increasingly important supplement to support people’s incomes in retirement.

    The other good news story here is that the Reserve Bank estimates around 40 per cent of all KiwiSaver balances are invested in New Zealand-based financial products and assets.

    I want to acknowledge the work Sharesies has done to promote KiwiSaver uptake and your efforts to improve Kiwis understanding of how it can support their financial security.

    I share your mission.  I want to see KiwiSaver balances continue to grow and our Budget will contain steps to support that mission. 

    Let me now turn to New Zealand Superannuation.

    In 2000, there were about 6.5 people of working age (15 and over) for every superannuitant. Today there are about 4.7 people of working age for every superannuitant. By 2050 there are expected to only be about 3.6 people of working age for every superannuitant. 

    At the same time, superannuation costs are increasing both in dollar terms and as a proportion of GDP.  Gross expenditure on super in 2000 was $5.1 billion or 4.4 per cent of GDP. By 2050 it is expected to be $71.7 billion or 6.5 per cent of GDP.

    This leaping cost will play out in this year’s Budget.  New Zealand Superannuation costs will rise from $23.2 billion this year to $29.0 billion in 2028/29.  

    Put this together with the cost of healthcare, which increases every year, and it’s clear we need to be earning more as a country to support this growing cost.  

    In the coming years, increasing superannuation costs will be partially offset by withdrawals from the Superannuation Fund which was established to help smooth superannuation costs between generations.  

    We are now approaching the time when the Super Fund is big enough to ensure that withdrawals, rather than contributions, are the normal outcome each year. 

    This is not a Government decision, it is driven by a formula in the relevant Act. 

    In something of a milestone event, the first withdrawal is forecast to happen in 2028 – a very modest withdrawal of $32 million. 

    In the short term there will be some bouncing around between withdrawals and contributions.  

    But from 2031 onwards, projections show that withdrawals from the Super Fund are expected in every year. 

    Withdrawals help cover the costs of Superannuation, so taxpayers don’t face the full cost each year. 

    This does not mean that the Super Fund will get smaller. Far from it. The Fund currently has $80 billion of investments. On reasonable assumptions, Super Fund returns will outstrip withdrawals, and the Fund will continue to get bigger every year. 

    This brings me to the announcement I want to make today. 

    As part of its investment activity, the New Zealand Super Fund has invested $300 million in a venture capital fund called Elevate. 

    The fund was established in 2020 to support high-growth tech-based startups in New Zealand. 

    The fund was created to fill a funding gap at the so-called Series A/B stage of startup funding – the point at which startups typically need $2–$20 million to scale beyond early seed funding.

    The Elevate fund operates as a fund-of-funds. That is, it invests not directly in startups, but in private venture capital funds which must also attract private co-investment.

    In doing so, it supports the commercialisation of science and technology and helps export-focused startups to attract global investment. It also helps to attract global investment to New Zealand by showing there is a pipeline of companies reaching the Series C stage.

    The short-term goal is to increase startup funding. The long-term goal is to help build a self-sustaining venture capital market in New Zealand in which returns from previous investments fund future investments. 

    The results from Elevate’s first five years of operation are positive. 

    It has committed $221 million across nine funds and attracted $536 million of private capital – a ratio of 2.4 dollars of private equity for every $1 committed by the fund. 

    This has led to $440 million being invested in 123 startups across sectors like software, clean-tech, and med-tech.

    There have been some significant successes. I’ll give you a couple of examples. 

    First, Dawn Aerospace which is developing reusable spaceplanes and non-toxic satellite propulsion systems to make space access more sustainable and affordable. 

    In 2022, the Elevate fund helped close a $22m funding raise for Dawn with a number of local Venture Capital funds. 

    This was instrumental in bridging the gap to a larger fundraising round of over $100m. 

    Since then, Dawn has expanded operations to France in 2023 and established a European facility in the Netherlands, all whilst still being run out of Christchurch.

    26 satellites, 122 thrusters and 3 launchers later, Dawn Aerospace is at the cutting edge of its sector with an ever-growing global presence and domestic economic impact.

    Second, Halter which has created a smart collar for cows that uses GPS, sound, and vibration to guide livestock, allowing farmers to manage grazing, shifting, and monitoring from a phone. 

    The collar is transforming day-to-day farm operations. 

    With the help of Elevate backed funds, Halter raised $32m in a Series B funding round in 2021. 

    In the time since, Halter has tripled its workforce to meet growing demand in markets including Australia and the United States.

    It has since attracted further Series C fundraising and is continuing with its plans to revolutionise farming.

    In time, the Elevate fund is expected to become self-sustaining with the returns from previous investments funding future investments. 

    However, the fund is not yet self-sustaining. 

    Therefore, I am announcing today that the Government is committing an extra $100 million to the Elevate venture capital fund at Budget 2025.

    This will be funded through a combination of the 2025 contribution to the NZ Super Fund of $61 million, topped up with an additional $39 million from the Budget 2025 capital allowance.

    This follows the approach taken by the previous government when the Elevate fund was established. The initial government contribution was funded from the Crown’s contribution to the Super Fund. 

    The Government wants to see more companies like Sharesies capitalise on New Zealand talent and grow from small beginnings to create opportunities for other New Zealanders and contribute to the New Zealand economy.

    Let me finish on an optimistic note. 

    The international order is undergoing profound change. We are seeing a shift from rules to power, from economics to security and from efficiency to resiliency. 

    None of this is good news for a small, remote nation that relies on trade for prosperity. 

    But New Zealand is blessed with abundant natural resources, safe, secure, borders, strong institutions and decent, smart, resilient people. Our best years are ahead of us.  

    The job of government is to unlock that potential, for New Zealanders today and for New Zealanders in the years ahead. Next week’s Budget will be the next step in that process.

    Thank you for listening. 

    I understand we have time for a few questions if you have any. 

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Awards – New crop of PINZ Award finalists named

    Source: Federated Farmers

    A Southlander who created edible bale netting and rural heroes who made their mark advocating for pragmatic regulation and supporting stressed-out farmers feature among PINZ 2025 finalists.
    The seventh annual Primary Industries NZ Awards are a highlight of the two-day PINZ Summit taking place at Te Pae Christchurch Convention Centre 24 and 25 June.
    “With tariff tit-for-tat sparking disruption and uncertainty in export markets, more than ever New Zealand needs the primary sector to be innovative and enterprising,” Federated Farmers Chief Executive Terry Copeland says.
    “The PINZ Awards celebrate our primary industry movers and shakers – the science and food production teams delivering a market edge for our exported goods, the leaders who go the extra mile.
    “Their efforts inspire others and lift the employment prospects and standard of living for fellow Kiwis,” Copeland says.
    Rural Hero finalists are (the late) Chris Allen, Neil Bateup and Ian Jury.
    Allen, who died in an accident on his Ashburton farm last December, gave 14 years’ service as an elected Federated Farmers leader, including eight years on the national board.
    A champion of rural causes, he steered a pragmatic and balanced approach on environment and water issues, earning respect not just from farmers but from those with opposing views.
    Neil Bateup helped set up the Waikato Hauraki Coromandel Rural Support Trust in 2004 and in 2017 became founding chair of the NZ RST. He’s given countless hours supporting farmers and rural families facing hard times.
    The third Rural Hero finalist is Ian Jury, an 85-year-old who for 20 years has been raising money for the Taranaki rescue helicopter by collecting batteries for recycling.
    Four young women selected as Emerging Leader Award finalists illustrate the depth of talent being fostered in our primary industries.
    Bridie Virbickas succeeded in her bid for one of the hotly-contested DairyNZ Associate director roles and followed that by joining waste recycling enterprise AgRecovery as a foundation trustee.
    A contract milker who has overseen expansion of her employing farm from 270 to 850 cows, she put up her hand to be Federated Farmers Bay of Plenty sharefarmer chair to ensure a voice for the district’s young farmers is at the decision-making table.
    The role has seen her help out in a number of cases where the relationship between a sharefarmer and farm owner had broken down.
    Imogen Brankin has only been with Silver Fern Farms for three years but the On-Farm Sustainability Advisor has organised 60 ‘Know Your Number’ climate change workshops.
    She was winner of the 2022 Polson Higgs and Young Farmers Innovation Competition, speaking on the topic “Can Farming Deliver a Sustainable Future for New Zealand”, and was part of a team of five who competed in the 2023 IFAMA Global Case Study Competition.
    Newly appointed Onions NZ general manager Kazi Talaska has served on the Food and Fibre Youth Council, latterly as chair, and champions the Vegetable Industry Centre of Excellence to support the vegetable industry research pipeline.
    Talaska worked with industry partners and growers to obtain $2 million in funding to set up a first-of-its-kind vegetable research farm, in Pukekohe.
    The fourth Emerging Leader Award finalist is agricultural sustainability coach Lucy Brown. Through her work with the MPI-funded Integrated Farm Planning project, and in other roles, she’s found ways to show farmers sustainability is not just a theoretical concept but something that is practical and achievable.
    Molesworth Station manager James (Jim) Ward is up against senior AgResearch scientists Dr Robyn Dynes and David Wheeler for the Champion Award.
    For nearly two decades, Ward has been a force on the Federated Farmers High Country committee and the Wilding Pine Network NZ, where he has tirelessly advocated for change, shaped policies, and driven meaningful improvements for New Zealand high-country farmers.
    Starting off as farm manager at Molesworth in 2001, Ward has faced and overcome countless challenges to ensure the station remains economically viable through a blend of pastoral farming, conservation, and recreation values – all under the microscope of the public eye.
    Wheeler has worked hard to bridge the gap between environmental stewardship and agricultural productivity, shaping and improving the farm management tool Overseer.
    Dynes, a Principal Scientist and Farmer Engagement Specialist in AgResearch, has had a highly regarded science career focused on farming systems at the interface between forage science and animal science.
    Southland farmer Grant Lightfoot is a finalist for the Food, Beverage and Fibre Producer Award after creating edible and biodegradable bale netting made from jute. It’s an environment-friendly alternative to plastic netting, which isn’t recyclable and is often ingested by livestock.
    The two other contenders in this category are Chia Sisters, who produce a gut health-supporting drink from a golden kiwifruit probiotic, kawakawa and hail-damaged cherries, and New Image International, which exports health and beauty products to millions of people around the world.
    The full list of 2025 Primary Industries NZ Award finalists is:
    Emerging Leader Award (sponsor Lincoln University)
    Bridie Virbickas, Federated Farmers Bay of Plenty Sharemilker Chair
    Imogen Brankin, On-Farm Sustainability Advisor, Silver Fern Farms
    Kazi Talaska, General Manager, Onions NZ
    Lucy Brown, The Whole Story
    Champion Award (sponsor BASF)
    David Wheeler, Senior Scientist, AgResearch
    James (Jim) Ward, Manager Molesworth Station
    Dr Robyn Dynes, Principal scientist and farmer engagement specialist, AgResearch
    Team & Collaboration Award (sponsor Overseer)
    nProve for Beef – online genetics tool, Beef + Lamb New Zealand
    Food System Integrity Team, AgResearch, led by Dr Gale Brightwell
    An open data sharing ecosystem: Fonterra, Ballance, Ravensdown, and LIC.
    Technology Innovation Award (sponsor AsureQuality Kaitiaki Kai)
    TEO for Ovitage®, the world’s most complete collagen
    FAR for Combine Workshops – increasing productivity on arable farms
    Alliance Group NZ for Meat Eating Quality (MEQ) technology
    Food, Beverage and Fibre Producer Award (sponsor Kotahi)
    Chia Sisters
    Kiwi Econet – founder, Grant Lightfoot
    New Image International
    Guardianship & Conservation/Kaitiakitanga Award (sponsor Rabobank)
    Pāua Dashboard – Pāua Industry Council
    The eDNA for water quality Team – led by Dr Adrian Cookson
    Pacificvet, co-founder Kent Deitemeyer
    Rural Hero of the Year (sponsor Fern Energy)
    Chris Allen (posthumous)
    Neil Bateup, Founder, Rural Support Trust
    Ian Jury, Taranaki grassroots good sort
    Outstanding Contribution to NZ’s Primary Industries Award (sponsor AgResearch)
    Winner to be announced on the night 

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Chris Hipkins: Pre-Budget speech

    Source: New Zealand Labour Party

    So as we gather here for an early conversation about next week’s Budget, it’s also a good time for us to have some hard, and honest, conversations about the crossroads our country finds itself at.

    We’re at a moment that demands honesty. A moment that demands leadership. And above all, a moment that demands hope.

    I want to say upfront that paying for your Budget at the expense of women, cutting their chance at fair pay, is the opposite of all of those things.

    I think the reaction over the past week has been swift, strong and utterly justified.

    Women all over this country rightly felt like pay equity was something they had fought for, in some cases devoting their lives to it. It was hard fought, and we were making progress.

    Let’s be clear – this Government is gaslighting all Kiwi women.

    Telling them they aren’t cutting women’s pay on one hand, while cancelling 33 active claims representing hundreds of thousands of women with no due process on the other.

    Claiming it wasn’t to pay for their Budget, then admitting their changes will see billions slashed from that same Budget.

    I think one of the many reasons this is resonating so strongly is because for many Kiwis, the promises they were sold at the last election have turned to dust.

    They were told the economy would be stronger. But it’s slower.

    They were told the cost of living would come down. But prices have gone up.

    They were told families with kids would get an extra $250 a fortnight to help with the cost of living, yet only a handful, if that, are getting it.

    They were told a new government would get things moving, and yet building projects have ground to a halt and 13,000 people working in construction lost their jobs.

    They were told the country would be united. But it’s more divided than ever.

    And at every turn, when people ask ‘why can’t we invest in our schools, in our hospitals, in our future?’ the government is giving them the same answer:

    “There’s no alternative.”

    Well, let me be clear: there is always an alternative. There are always choices.

    And this government is making the wrong ones.

    A $3 billion tax break for landlords while cutting funding for pay equity for women.

    A rollback of our world-leading smoke-free laws while giving tobacco companies over $200 million in tax breaks.

    Borrowing $12 billion for tax cuts while cutting jobs, cutting investment, and cutting hope for future generations.

    They are choosing austerity. Nicola Willis doesn’t like that word, but it is absolutely true. Choosing decline. Choosing division.

    But we in Labour are choosing a different path. A better path. A fairer path. One that puts people at the heart of our economy and decency back at the heart of our politics.

    Because we’ve done it before, and we can do it again.

    There are challenges ahead. Challenges like the rise of artificial intelligence and the changing nature of work that’s going to prompt.

    The climate crisis, and the energy transition that’s going to demand.

    An ageing population, in need of care and dignity.

    The widening gap between rich and poor, between city and region, between young and old.

    And the creeping polarisation that seeks to divide us, when what we need most is to come together.

    What’s this government’s response now to these challenges?

    Deregulate here. Privatise there.

    If it moves, sell it. If it breaks, blame someone else.

    This is a government more interested in finding someone else to blame than solving the problems facing the country.

    They’re trying to solve the challenges of the 21st century with ideas from the 19th.

    They have no plan for the future. Just slogans and spreadsheets.

    But we do have a plan. A serious, credible, ambitious plan one that is rooted in fairness, decency, and community. One that believes in people. One that backs New Zealand.

    Labour is the party that governs for all, not just a few.

    Let’s start with the economy—because you can’t build anything if your foundations are crumbling.

    The current government loves to repeat the myth that New Zealand is drowning in debt.

    Let’s look at the facts. Before COVID-19 arrived, our net core Crown debt was around 18%. After the pandemic, it peaked at 40%. That’s an increase—but it’s broadly in line with what National borrowed during the Global Financial Crisis, when they increased debt by 20%.

    And if you include our assetts—like the New Zealand Super Fund—our net debt falls closer to 25%. That’s still one of the lowest levels in the developed world.

    You wouldn’t sell your house because of a mortgage you can easily manage. And we shouldn’t sell our public assets because of debt that’s low by international standards.

    And net debt isn’t the full story either. The government’s net worth more than doubled over the past decade —from $81 billion in 2014 to $191 billion in 2023.

    We need a more mature conversation about government debt and assets than the one that we are having at the moment.

    Borrowing more money to support a higher number of people on unemployment benefits because you’ve slashed government investment in areas like infrastructure and housing simply isn’t sustainable.

    Now is exactly the time for government to make the investments we need in infrastructure, housing, health, and our environment so we are creating jobs and get New Zealand moving again.

    Anchor projects funded by government have helped us get through major economic shocks before, like the rollout of broadband during the GFC. They create jobs, stimulate the economy, and leave a positive legacy for the future.

    Yet all we’ve seen from this government so far is big talk about a pipeline of future projects that’s yet to eventuate. In fact, the opposite has happened. They spent less last year than the year before.

    All the big talk about infrastructure is actually resulting in less investment in it.

    Talking about economic growth without actually having a plan to deliver it just doesn’t cut it.

    Labour will get New Zealand back to work, just as we’ve done before.

    We didn’t get everything right in government, but let’s put a few facts on the table.

    GDP per person grew by $18,000 under the last Labour government—more than under either the Clark or Key governments, despite the fact we were in office for 3 years less than both of those predecessor governments.

    And wages? Under Bolger and Shipley, ordinary hourly pay grew by $3.30 over nine years. Under Clark, $7.22. Under Key and English, $6.29. Under Ardern and Hipkins? $9.98.

    We grew the economy faster. We lifted wages faster. We created more jobs. Unemployment was lower.

    So when the government tells you there is no alternative to cuts—don’t believe it. There is.

    But it’s not just about numbers. It’s about values.

    If we are genuinely going to turn things around, and provide New Zealanders with hope and the opportunity of a better future, this year’s Budget will need to do three things.

    First, it will need to properly fund our frontline public services like health, education, aged care and police.

    National promised New Zealanders before the election frontline public services wouldn’t be cut, yet hiring freezes in health, cuts to specialist teachers, and cruel cuts to disability support all serve as vivid examples that just wasn’t true.

    Second, it will need to provide a credible answer to how the government is going to fund all of its promises, and that should not be at the expense of working New Zealand women.

    They’ve committing billions in infrastructure investment, for example, but still haven’t said how they will pay for it all.

    Third, they need to show they have a plan to invest in our future. To rebuild our ageing schools, hospitals, public homes and infrastructure. To create jobs, upskill our workers, and raising wages and living standards.

    Because fundamentally, good economic management is about people. Shifting numbers around on a page while making life harder for everyday working Kiwis is not a sign of success.

    How can we look our kids in the eye when we give $3 billion tax break to landlords—while cutting funding for food banks?

    How can we justify increasing returns for landlords while we cut the pay of those who clean our hospitals and protect our schools?

    We can’t. We won’t and we shouldn’t.

    Labour is not anti-wealth. We are anti-poverty. And we are pro-opportunity—for everyone.

    We believe in a fair tax system, and you’ll hear more from us on that soon. Not to punish success, but to ask those who have benefitted most to contribute their fair share—to the schools that taught them, the roads that connect them, and the hospitals that care for their families.

    Because you can’t build a strong economy on a weak society.

    We want to build a country where our kids don’t feel they have to leave New Zealand to build a life for themselves.

    Where our elders can live with dignity.

    Where no child goes hungry.

    Where our businesses thrive.

    Where being a nurse, a teacher, or a farmer isn’t a path to burnout—but a path to pride.

    We want New Zealand to be a place where our best and brightest don’t just want to stay—but they can stay. Because there is opportunity here. Hope here. A future here.

    We know the future will test us. Artificial intelligence is going to change how we work. Climate change is going to challenge how we live. New technologies will transform jobs and our industries.

    But these aren’t reasons to fear the future. They are reasons to shape it.

    And that’s exactly what Labour will do.

    We will invest in green energy and the industries of tomorrow.

    We will reform our education system so that we prepare young people for the jobs of the future—not the jobs of the 19th century.

    We will make sure that new technologies benefit everyone, not just the few.

    We will build homes—not sell them off.

    We will protect our environment—not carve it up and privatise it.

    And need to focus on uniting this country—not driving division.

    Because diversity is not a weakness. It is our greatest strength.

    Whether you are Māori, Pākehā, Pasifika, Asian, or new to this land—you are all Kiwis.

    Whether you’re a nurse in Palmerston North, a teacher in Ōtaki, a small business owner in Timaru, a cleaner in South Auckland, a builder in Rotorua, or a farmer in Wairoa – your contribution matters.

    Whether you’re young or old, rich or poor, gay or straight or transgender, Labour sees you. Labour hears you. Labour is fighting for you.

    Because what unites us is far greater than what divides us.

    We are a nation of workers and dreamers, of creators and carers.

    We believe in fairness. In decency. In community.

    And we believe the role of government is not to sit on the sidelines—it’s to step up, to help, to serve.

    This government is making different choices. Choosing a lucky few, over the rest of us.

    And those choices show us, more than anything, what kind of country this government wants to build.

    But I ask you: is that the country we want?

    A broken health system.

    Children going to school hungry.

    People sleeping in cars.

    And a generation—our kids—growing up believing they may never own a home, never raise a family, never build a future here.

    Or do we want a New Zealand where everyone gets a fair go?

    Where the dignity of work is restored, the promise of opportunity renewed, and the bonds of community rebuilt?

    We’re not here to manage decline. We are here to build the future.

    A future where prosperity is shared.

    Where no one is left behind.

    Where we choose hope over fear.

    Where we say to the next generation: yes—you can dream here. You can build here. You can stay here.

    We’ve done it before.

    And with your support, we’ll do it again.

    Let’s build a better way. Together.

    Kia kaha. Kia māia. Kia manawanui.

    Thank you.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: 150-2025: Scheduled Outage: Thursday 15 May 2025 – Multiple Systems

    Source: New South Wales Government 2

    12 May 2025

    Who does this notice affect?

    All clients required to use Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry web-based applications during this planned maintenance period.

    All users of the Seasonal Pests (SeaPest) system.

    All clients required to use the eCertificate exports portal who will be required to view or download export certification during this planned maintenance period.

    All clients required to use the Export / Next Export Documentation (…

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI USA: SCHUMER – WITH WESTERN NY RELIGIOUS LEADERS & FOOD BANKS – SOUNDS ALARM THAT UNDER GOP PLAN TO CUT SNAP – AMERICA’S LARGEST ANTI-HUNGER PROGRAM – THOUSANDS OF KIDS, SENIORS, & FAMILIES COULD GO…

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New York Charles E Schumer
    Already 8,000 Cases Of Food For FeedMore WNY Have Already Been Canceled Due To Trump’s Cruel USDA Cuts – Now GOP Wants To Steal Up To $230 Billion From SNAP To Fund Trump’s Tax Breaks For Corporations & Billionaires
    Schumer, With Church Leaders & Advocates, Say This Double Whammy Could Hurtle Families To A Hunger Crisis, Impacting 208,000+ In WNY, Millions Nationwide; Demands GOP Block Cruel Cut To SNAP And Protect Anti-Hunger Programs
    Schumer: No Child Should Go To Bed Hungry. This Is Not A Partisan Issue; This Is A Moral Issue
    As Congressional Republicans look to advance the largest potential cut to the anti-hunger program SNAP in American history this week, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer stood with Western NY religious leaders, food banks, & farmers to issue a stark warning and demand action against the devastating proposed $230 billion SNAP cut to fund Trump’s tax cuts for corporations & billionaires, that would leave thousands of seniors, families and children hungry. The senator joined with church leaders and hunger advocates to say how this is a moral issue that we should all unite to stop, and Schumer called on the administration to reverse its hunger program cuts and for the NY House Republicans to stand against stealing from SNAP, which over 208,000 in Western NY rely on for food.
    “No child should ever go to bed hungry. But Trump’s slashing of anti-hunger programs at the USDA has already cancelled 8,000 cases of food for FeedMore Western NY.  Now, House Republicans are trying to rush through the budget process and make the largest cut to SNAP in history. With food insecurity on the rise, this is a double whammy that could hurtle families to a hunger crisis,” said Senator Schumer. “Stealing from SNAP to pay for Trump’s tax breaks for corporations & billionaires is as backwards as it gets, and will result in thousands of kids, seniors, and families going hungry. It is not a partisan issue, it is a moral issue. That is why I am here to show what these cuts mean for the nuns, priests, and food banks on the frontlines of fighting against hunger. Together we are demanding a stop to this all-out assault on our federal anti-hunger programs and to protect SNAP for our children, veterans, seniors, and families.”
    “We need to recognize that food insecurity is not just a problem for someone else—it’s our problem. Catholic Charities of Buffalo, alongside FeedMore WNY and others, is committed to addressing it. But we cannot do it alone and we are grateful for the efforts of Senator Schumer and those of his colleagues who truly understand this problem,” said Deacon Steve Schumer, president and CEO of Catholic Charities of Buffalo.
    Schumer added, “It only takes a few NY House Republicans to join us to stop this cruel cut to SNAP. We need NY Republicans to show us which side they are on with their actions. For feeding corporate & billionaires’ greed or for feeding hungry families here in Western NY. We need them to join us in demanding the USDA reverse all of Trump’s cuts to our farmers, food banks, and anti-hunger programs and keep their hands off SNAP to fund Trump’s tax breaks.”
    Schumer explained how Trump’s USDA has already cruelly canceled $1 billion in food assistance, hurting Western New York’s FeedMore WNY, and if these SNAP cuts move forward it would be a double whammy, hurtling us to a hunger crisis. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a lifeline for nearly 3 million NY seniors, veterans and families who rely on the critical funding to purchase groceries. Schumer said that we should be investing more not less in anti-hunger programs, but under the Republican proposal, the average family would be reduced to just $5.00 per day per person. A breakdown of SNAP recipients in Western NY from the Center for American Progress can be found below:

    County

    SNAP Recipients

    % of County on SNAP

    Cattaraugus

    10,959

    14.4%

    Chautauqua

    23,926

    19.1%

    Erie

    147,427

    15.5%

    Niagara

    26,650

    12.7%

    TOTAL

    208,962

     
    Schumer explained the Republican proposal to cut up to $230 billion from SNAP would inevitably mean costs of feeding families shift to states, who simply do not have the capacity to absorb this massive increase in expenses, risking families going hungry. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, mandating New York State to cover even a modest share of SNAP benefits would shift astronomical costs to the state with even just 5% increasing New York State’s costs by nearly $3.5 billion from FY2026 to FY2034. The senator said it is impossible to cut this much from federal SNAP funding without ripping food away from hungry children, seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and more.
    These agonizing decisions would be amplified even further at the local level, with non-profits, many of whom have already had their funding cut, unable to fill in the gap. Counties could even be forced to shoulder the burden of increased costs in SNAP, using more local dollars to provide coverage because less federal funding will be coming in.
    According to New York’s Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, in New York’s 26th Congressional District – which represents parts of Erie and Niagara counties – nearly 77,000 households receive an estimated $337 million in annual benefits. 35% of SNAP recipients are children, 14% are elderly, and 10% are people with disabilities. In New York’s 23rd Congressional District over 51,000 households receive an estimated $200 million in annual benefits. 31% of SNAP recipients are children, 17% are elderly, and 12% are people with disabilities.
    Schumer said, “SNAP is a lifeline that helps uplift everyone, from the NY farms who get direct assistance from the program to Western NY families’ kitchen tables. NY Republicans are tying themselves in knots to try to justify these SNAP cuts, but the math shows you cannot make the massive cuts the House’s tax bill proposes without risking the food security for thousands of families. I’m all for reducing any waste or fraud to make the program more efficient, but rushing to pass these massive damaging cuts with no plan while they slash our food banks is a recipe for disaster.”
    The proposed SNAP cuts would be a blow to Western NY food banks which have already been hit hard by Trump’s funding freezes and canceled payments. Earlier this year, the USDA canceled $1 billion in food assistance for organizations to purchase locally grown food. USDA programs provide food banks, schools, and other organizations with federal support to purchase local food products from NY farms.
    FeedMore WNY is facing a projected $3.5M loss in food for 2025, as 12 critical orders of protein, dairy, and produce scheduled for delivery between May and August have already been canceled, resulting in the loss of over 8,000 cases of food, including thousands of dozens of eggs. In 2024, TEFAP CCC purchases accounted for 13% of all food distributed by FeedMore WNY. This loss comes as hunger continues to surge across the region, with FeedMore experiencing a 46% increase in demand since 2021, serving tens of thousands of children, seniors, and working families each year.
    Schumer said these proposed cuts will limit food banks’ ability to keep shelves stocked as more people have been forced to rely on food banks to feed their families. Food bank workers and religious leaders across Upstate New York are concerned about the impact of potential cuts to SNAP on the people they serve, and farmers are worried there will be nowhere to sell their food if SNAP funding levels drop.
    “No matter which way you slice it, this Congressional Republican plan will screw Western New York families, food banks and farmers from farm to table. We need everyone to stand up to these cuts that would take away food from our neighbors in need,” added Schumer.
     “Deeply embedded in many religious traditions is the call to care for the vulnerable, forgotten, and poor in our midst. Offering them as we do, not just charity, but also justice that upholds their dignity and worth as human beings. And what is more basic in providing human dignity and worth for people, than providing them with the food they need? For 16 years I have pastored in WNY, and during that time I have witnessed over and over again the injustices that exist around our food system.  I have seen people who depend on programs like SNAP for their survival, especially the elderly and the children in my congregation, torn down and made to feel like they are unworthy because they cannot afford to eat. We cannot let the people we call our neighbors, our family, and our friends, go hungry in order to save those who already have more than what they need. That is why I am proud to stand with Senator Schumer, and other leaders in our community, to demand justice. To demand that our leaders uphold the dignity of all people, instead of choosing to take the food off their plates,” said Pastor Rebecca Mentzer, Prince of Peace Lutheran Church.
    “As the director of Primera’s Food Pantry, I see firsthand how many of our neighbors have to make impossible choices—between paying bills or putting food on the table,” said Pastor Cesar Galarza, Community Church Jehovah Jireh. “In recent months, we have seen a 50% increase in individuals who come to our pantry because they can no longer afford groceries. We are grateful to Senator Schumer for being here today and hearing about the nutritional insecurity that many people in our community face, and we urge more lawmakers to follow his lead. Our communities are struggling—not in theory, but in real life—and they need meaningful support to access the basic nutrition every person deserves.”
    “We hope for a day when we do not need millions of dollars in funding because the need in the community is lower – but that day is not today. Food insecurity remains a massive and growing problem across the country, including Western New York. Last year alone, more than 165,700 individuals relied on FeedMore WNY for food assistance, which was a 46 percent increase in just three years’ time. The federal government plays a critical role in alleviating food insecurity, and we appreciate the work Senator Chuck Schumer is doing to fight for this mission critical funding. In 2024, FeedMore WNY received more than $14.9 million in federal funding to purchase food for our food bank distribution network, offer community outreach with SNAP assistance, and provide prepared meals for our community dining sites and home-delivered meal clients. It is imperative that the federal government continue to fund and support food assistance programs including SNAP, TEFAP and Meals on Wheels. Any reduction or elimination of these vital funds would has a devastating effect on the charitable food assistance network and further exacerbate the already massive problem of hunger in WNY and throughout the nation,” said Collin Bishop, Chief Communications Officer FeedMore WNY.
    Proposed rollbacks to the country’s most widely utilized nutrition assistance program would strain budgets for Western NY families. Schumer said decimating funding for SNAP right as costs at grocery stores across the country are skyrocketing will hit the Western NY hard. According to the New York State Community Action Association, more than 14% of people in Erie County live in poverty, including more than 20% of children. According to No Kid Hungry, over half of New Yorkers reported going into debt in the past year due to rising food costs, with over 60% of families with children.
    SNAP not only supplements families’ food budgets, it has also generated great economic benefits for New York State and NY-26 specifically. According to the National Grocers Association, grocery stores across New York State sold over $2.1 billion in groceries to people using SNAP benefits, including $146.1 million in NY-26. This created more than 18,500 New York jobs in the grocery industry, including 1,288 in NY-26, and generated more than $820.8 million in grocery industry wages, including $356.9 million in NY-26.
    Schumer has been a strong advocate for addressing food insecurity in Western New York. Schumer last year secured $3 million for FeedMore WNY to build a new, 197,700-square-foot facility in the fiscal year (FY) 2024 spending bill. The senator secured $2 million to expand FeedMore WNY’s facility in the omnibus end-of-year spending package for FY2023. Additionally, in November 2023, Schumer announced over $40 million for food organizations across the state through the USDA funded New York Food for New York Families program with Governor Hochul, including $2 million for FeedMore and millions more for other Western NY food organizations and school districts.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: SBA Offers Disaster Assistance to Oklahoma Small Businesses, Nonprofits and Residents Affected by Spring Storms

    Source: United States Small Business Administration

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announced the availability of low interest federal disaster loans to Oklahoma small businesses, nonprofits and residents to offset physical and economic losses from severe storms and flooding beginning April 19. The SBA issued a disaster declaration in response to a request SBA received from Gov. Kevin Stitt on May 9.

    The disaster declaration covers the Oklahoma counties of Caddo, Comanche, Cotton, Grady, Kiowa, Stephens and Tillman.

    Businesses and nonprofits are eligible to apply for business physical disaster loans and may borrow up to $2 million to repair or replace disaster-damaged or destroyed real estate, machinery and equipment, inventory, and other business assets.

    Homeowners and renters are eligible to apply for home and personal property loans and may borrow up to $100,000 to replace or repair personal property, such as clothing, furniture, cars, and appliances. Homeowners may apply for up to $500,000 to replace or repair their primary residence.

    Applicants may be eligible for a loan increase of up to 20% of their physical damages, as verified by the SBA, for mitigation purposes. Eligible mitigation improvements include insulating pipes, walls and attics, weather stripping doors and windows, and installing storm windows to help protect property and occupants from future disasters.

    SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program is available to eligible small businesses, small agricultural cooperatives, nurseries and private nonprofit (PNP)organizations impacted by financial losses directly related to this disaster. The SBA is unable to provide disaster loans to agricultural producers, farmers, or ranchers, except for aquaculture enterprises.

    EIDLs are for working capital needs caused by the disaster and are available even if the business or PNP did not suffer any physical damage. They may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills not paid due to the disaster.

    Interest rates are as low as 4% for businesses, 3.62% for nonprofits, and 2.75% for homeowners and renters with terms up to 30 years. Interest does not begin to accrue, and payments are not due until 12 months from the date of the first loan disbursement. The SBA sets loan amounts and terms based on each applicant’s financial condition.

    Beginning May 13, SBA customer service representatives will be on hand at a Disaster Loan Outreach Center (DLOC) to answer questions about SBA’s disaster loan program, explain the application process and help individuals complete their applications. Walk-ins are accepted, but you can schedule an in-person appointment in advance at appointment.sba.gov.

    “When disasters strike, SBA’s Disaster Loan Outreach Centers play a vital role in helping small businesses and their communities recover,” said Chris Stallings, associate administrator of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience at the SBA. “At these centers, SBA specialists assist business owners and residents with disaster loan applications and provide information on the full range of recovery programs available.”

    The DLOC hours of operations are listed below.

    COMANCHE COUNTY
    Disaster Loan Outreach Center
    Patterson Community Center
    Library Room
    4 NE Arlington Dr.
    Lawton, OK  73507

    Opens at 12 p.m. Tuesday, May 13

    Mondays – Fridays, 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.

    To apply online, visit sba.gov/disaster. Applicants may also call SBA’s Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955 or email disastercustomerservice@sba.gov for more information on SBA disaster assistance. For people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

    The deadline to return physical damage applications is July 11. The deadline to return economic injury applications is Feb. 12, 2026.

    ###

    About the U.S. Small Business Administration

    The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of business ownership. As the only go-to resource and voice for small businesses backed by the strength of the federal government, the SBA empowers entrepreneurs and small business owners with the resources and support they need to start, grow, expand their businesses, or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cortez Masto, Colleagues Demand Answers from Department of Education on Mental Health Funding Cuts

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto
    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) led 20 of her Senate colleagues in a letter to U.S. Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon demanding answers on recent reports that the Department had cut approximately $1 billion in federal mental health grants to help schools hire more psychologists, counselors, and other mental health workers. The Senators also expressed concern about how these cuts will affect schools’ ability to support students and their behavioral health needs and questioned how the Department plans to address the youth mental health crisis.
    “This abrupt decision to cut critical funding that was enacted into law under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and annual appropriations acts and already planned to be used in states, communities, and schools is deeply troubling and not consistent with our intent of providing these funds to support the health and wellbeing of children across the nation,” wrote the Senators. “We are requesting more information on the Department of Education’s decision and the Department’s plan to re-envision and re-compete its mental health program funds.”
    Senator Cortez Masto has been a leader in fighting for critical mental health dollars for students in Nevada and across the country. In 2022, Senator Cortez Masto helped pass the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, and fought to ensure the bill included $1 billion for the Mental Health Services Professional Demonstration Grant and the School-Based Mental Health Services Program.
    These grants have shown to be extremely effective at addressing the shortage of school mental health professionals and increasing access to comprehensive school mental health services. School-based mental health professionals have been proven to improve staff retention, help keep students in school, and promote learning environments where students feel safe, supported, and ready to learn.
    “The uncertainty that is being created by the Department of Education is jeopardizing the work that has been done to increase comprehensive youth mental and behavioral health services, and the availability of school-based mental health professionals across the country,” continued the Senators.
    Additional signatories include Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
    Read the full letter here.
    Senator Cortez Masto has pushed multiple Departments under the Trump Administration for detailed, public information regarding the impacts of President Trump’s federal funding freeze, hiring freeze, and terminations on Nevada – including to the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Agriculture, General Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, and Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.  

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Environmental Crimes Bulletin – April 2025

    Source: United States Attorneys General

    View All Environmental Crimes Bulletins


    In This Issue:


    Cases by District/Circuit


    District/Circuit Case Name Conduct/Statute(s)
    District of Alaska United States v. Jason Christenson Tampering with a Monitoring Device/Clean Air Act
    United States v. Matanuska Diesel, LLC, et al. Tampering with a Monitoring Device/ Clean Air Act, Conspiracy
    Western District of Arkansas United States v. Redemption Repairs & Performance Tampering with a Monitoring Device/Clean Air Act
    Southern District of California United States v. Dumitru Cicai Pesticide Smuggling
    United States v. Sarmad Ghaled Dafer, et al. Monkey Smuggling/ Conspiracy
    Southern District of Florida United States v. Royce Gillham Biofuel Credits/Conspiracy, False Claims, Wire Fraud
    Southern District of Georgia United States v. Justin Taylor Tampering with a Monitoring Device/Conspiracy, Tax
    District of Maryland United States v. Idrissa Bagayoko Pesticide Sales/FIFRA, HMTA
    District of Massachusetts United States v. John D. Murphy Dog Fighting/Animal Welfare Act
    Eastern District of Michigan United States v. Tribar Technologies, Inc. Wastewater Discharges/Clean Water Act
    District of Montana United States v. Mold Wranglers, et al. Lead Paint Abatement/False Claims Act/Toxic Substances Control Act, Knowing Endangerment
    United States v. Melanie Ann Carlin Lead Paint Disclosures/Toxic Substances Control Act
    District of New Jersey United States v. Johnnie Lee Nelson, et al. Dog Fighting/Animal Fighting Venture, Conspiracy
    United States v. Antonio Pereira, et al. Scallop Harvesting/ Conspiracy, Obstruction
    Eastern District of New York United States v. Charles Limmer Butterfly Smuggling/ Conspiracy
    United States v. John Waldrop, et al. Bird Mounts/Conspiracy, Endangered Species Act
    Southern District of New York United States v. Jose Correa Asbestos Removal/Clean Air Act
    District of Oregon United States v. Chamness Dirt Works, Inc., et al. Asbestos Removal/Clean Air Act
    United States v. J.H. Baxter & Co., Inc. et al. Hazardous Waste Treatment and Emissions/Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, False Statement
    Middle District of Pennsylvania United States v. Ryan Spencer Tampering with a Monitoring Device/Clean Air Act, Conspiracy
    Western District of Pennsylvania United States v. Dale A. Smith Ginseng Sales/ Conspiracy, Lacey Act
    District of Rhode Island United States v. Onill Vasquez Lozada, et al. Cockfighting/Animal Welfare Act
    District of South Carolina United States v. Lauren DeLoach Sperm Whale Teeth and Bones/Lacey Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act
    Northern District of Texas United States v. Dlubak Glass Company Hazardous Waste Storage/False Statement
    Southern District of Texas United States v. Priscilla Sanchez Monkey Smuggling/Lacey Act
    Western District of Texas United States v. Aghorn Operating, Inc., et al. Employee Death/Clean Air Act, False Statement, Safe Drinking Water Act, Worker Safety
    Western District of Virginia United States v. Coby Brummett Ginseng Digging/ Unauthorized Removal Natural Product from Park
    Eastern District of Washington United States v. Pavel Ivanovich Turlak, et al. Tampering with a Monitoring Device/Clean Air Act, Conspiracy, False Claims, Wire Fraud
    Western District of Washington United States v. Joel David Ridley Eagle Killing/Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Firearm
    Northern District of West Virginia United States v. Michael Kandis Reptile Trafficking/Lacey Act

    Recently Charged


    United States v. Ryan Spencer

    • No. 1:25-CR-00100 (Middle District of Pennsylvania)
    • ECS Senior Trial Attorneys RJ Powers and Ron Sarachan
    • AUSA David Williams

    On April 4, 2025, prosecutors filed an information charging Ryan Spencer with conspiring to impede the lawful functions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to violate the Clean Air Act (CAA), as well as substantive CAA violations (18 U.S.C. § 371; 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(2)(C)).

    Between 2013 and March 2024, Spencer, a Service Manager at Pro Diesel Werks, LLC, along with Pro Diesel Werks owner Roy Ladell Weaver and others, disabled the hardware emissions control systems on the diesel vehicles of Pro Diesel Werks’ customers (a practice referred to as a “delete” or “deleting”), defeating the systems’ ability to reduce pollutant gases and particulate matter emitted into the atmosphere. The information further alleges that Spencer and his co-conspirators also tampered with the emissions diagnostic systems on the vehicles to prevent the diagnostic system software from monitoring the emission control system hardware deletes (a practice referred to as a “tune” or “tuning”).

    On February 19, 2025, a grand jury indicted Weaver and Pro Diesel Werks on similar charges.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation.

    Related Press Release: Middle District of Pennsylvania | Dauphin County Man Charged With Violations of Clean Air Act and Conspiring to Defraud the United States and Violate the Clean Air Act | United States Department of Justice


    United States v. Joel David Ridley

    • No. 2:25-mj-00175 (Western District of Washington)
    • AUSA Celia Ann Lee

    On April 7, 2025, a court unsealed a complaint charging Joel David Ridley, a member of the Lummi Nation, with violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and for illegally possessing a firearm (16 U.S.C. § 668(a); 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)).

    According to the complaint, on February 23, 2025, a witness on the Lummi Reservation heard a gunshot while walking his dog. As he walked home, the witness heard a second shot and saw a person pick up an eagle from the ground. As the witness was on the phone with police, he saw another eagle fall from a tree on his property. The eagle was badly injured. Police captured the surviving eagle and later transported it to the Humane Society.

    Shortly after meeting with the witness, police encountered an SUV in the area that matched the description provided by the reporting party.  A records check revealed the vehicle belonged to Ridley. When police responded to the residence, they observed a dead eagle in the back seat of Ridley’s vehicle.

    Police obtained a search warrant for Ridley’s vehicle and found a dead eagle and a .22 caliber Savage rifle concealed between the rear seats. Ridely is prohibited from possessing firearms due to a prior conviction.

    Both juvenile bald eagles were taken to the Washington State Humane Society and found to have suffered gunshot wounds. The surviving eagle had to be euthanized.

    While the Lummi Tribe is permitted to possess, distribute, and transport bald or golden eagles found dead within Indian Country, the permit does not authorize the taking of eagles by gunshot, poison, or trapping.

    The Lummi Nation Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation.

    Related Press Release: Western District of Washington | Member of Lummi Nation charged federally with illegal firearms possession and killing protected bald eagles | United States Department of Justice


    United States v. Dumitru Cicai

    • No. 3:25-mj-01628 (Southern District of California)
    • AUSA Emily Allen

    On April 8, 2025, prosecutors filed a complaint charging Dumitru Cicai with smuggling twenty-four one-liter bottles of “Taktic” pesticide into the United States (18 U.S.C. § 545).

    On March 31, 2025, Cicai drove into the United States at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. Cicai told the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) primary inspection officer that he had nothing to declare. Upon inspecting the vehicle, the primary officer discovered multiple pieces of natural wood branches in the vehicle’s trunk and large bottles concealed in black bags.

    When questioned by the secondary CBP officer, Cicai said he only had wood to declare, nothing else. Upon closer inspection, officers found 24 bottles of pesticide labeled “Taktic.”

    “Taktic” contains the active ingredient amitraz at an emulsifiable concentration of 12.5 percent. Under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations, amitraz in this form is a cancelled and unregistered pesticide in the United States.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division and Homeland Security Investigations conducted the investigation. 


    United States v. Jason Christenson

    • No. 3:25-CR-00030 (District of Alaska)
    • AUSA Ainsley McNerney
    • RCEC Karla Perrin

    On April 25, 2025, prosecutors filed an information charging Jason Christenson with tampering with a Clean Air Act (CAA) monitoring device and CAA false statements (42 U.S.C. §§ 7413(c)(2)(C), (c)(2)(A)).

    Between October 2019 and March 2024, Christenson tampered with monitoring methods required to be maintained under the CAA by altering the emissions control equipment on approximately 170 diesel trucks. Christenson and his business, Elite Diesel Performance, also modified the onboard diagnostic systems of the vehicles to prevent them from detecting the fact that this equipment had been removed.

    On May 1, 2021, Christenson submitted a response to a Request for Information sent by the Environmental Protection Agency that contained false statements. Specifically, for the question asking whether he or his business had manufactured, sold, or installed any defeat devices, Christenson responded ‘no.’ In truth, he had installed more than 100 defeat devices on diesel trucks between January 2019 and January 2021.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation.


    Guilty Pleas


    United States v. Priscilla Sanchez

    • No. 5:25-CR-00254 (Southern District of Texas)
    • AUSA Torie Sailor

    On April 1, 2025, Priscilla Sanchez pleaded guilty to violating the Lacey Act for attempting to import five spider monkeys, a protected species, into the United States from Mexico (16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(2), 3373(d)(1)(A)). Sentencing is scheduled for July 1, 2025.

    On January 13, 2025, Sanchez attempted to enter the U.S. at the Port of Entry, near Laredo, Texas, driving an SUV. Customs and Border Protection officers referred her to secondary screening. Officers discovered a duffle bag with five monkeys wearing diapers concealed inside of it. Authorities confirmed they were spider monkeys, which are protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Sanchez admitted to keeping monkeys at her house and selling them for between $300 and $500 each. She also knew it was illegal to do so.

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations, and Customs and Border Protection conducted the investigation.

    Case photo of monkeys seized by CBP agents.


    United States v. Lauren DeLoach

    • No. 9:25-CR-00164 (District of South Carolina)
    • ECS Senior Trial Attorney Ryan Connors
    • AUSA Winston Holliday
    • AUSA Elle Klein

    On April 10, 2025, Lauren DeLoach pleaded guilty to violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Lacey Act trafficking for importing and selling sperm whale teeth and bones (16 U.S.C. §§ 1372(a)(4)(B), 3372(a)(1), 3373(b)(1)(B)).

    DeLoach operated a home decoration store in St. Helena Island, South Carolina. Between September 2021 and September 2024, he imported sperm whale parts to South Carolina, with at least 30 shipments coming from Australia, Latvia, Norway, and Ukraine. DeLoach instructed suppliers to label the items as “plastic” or “resin” so they would not be seized by U.S. Customs authorities. DeLoach acknowledged selling the teeth and bones from July 2022 through September 2024, in violation of the Lacey Act. He sold at least 85 items on eBay worth more than $18,000, and agents seized approximately $20,000 worth of sperm whale parts from DeLoach’s residence while executing a search warrant.

    Laboratory analysis confirmed the teeth and bones belonged to sperm whales, which are a protected species.

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration conducted the investigation.

    Related Press Release: District of South Carolina | South Carolina Man Pleads Guilty for Illegally Importing and Selling Sperm Whale Teeth and Bones | United States Department of Justice


    United States v. Dale A. Smith

    • No. 1:21-CR-00031 (Western District of Pennsylvania)
    • AUSA Paul Sellers

    On April 21, 2025, Dale A. Smith pleaded guilty to conspiracy and to violating the Lacey Act for illegally purchasing American ginseng (18 U.S.C. § 371; 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(2)(B), 3373(d)(l)(B)).

    As the owner and operator of Alleghany Mountain Ginseng, Smith possessed licenses to deal wild American ginseng in Pennsylvania and New York. Between September 2018 and January 2020, he purchased wild ginseng in Pennsylvania from buyers who informed him that they harvested it from New York without required certifications. Smith then submitted falsified Ginseng Dealer Quarterly Reports stating he purchased legally harvested ginseng from Pennsylvania, when in fact the ginseng came from New York.

    The United States Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation.


    United States v. Matanuska Diesel, LLC, et al.

    • No. 3:23-CR-00109 (District of Alaska)
    • AUSA Jennifer Ivers
    • RCEC Karla Perrin

    On April 23, 2025, Brendan Trevors entered into a pretrial diversion agreement, pleading guilty to conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act (18 U.S.C. § 371). The charge will be dismissed in 18 months if Trevors complies with all the conditions in the agreement. This includes paying a $16,000 fine and restoring his vehicle back to original emission control parameters.

    Between July 2020 and June 2022, Matanuska Diesel, LLC, company owner Mackenzie Spurlock, and former co-owner Trevors, removed air pollution control equipment and tampered with federally mandated monitoring devices on diesel vehicles. The process of removing emissions control systems and reprogramming a vehicle’s onboard diagnostic system is known as “deleting” and “tuning.” These unlawful modifications result in a significant increase in pollutants emitted by the vehicle. The defendants tampered with approximately nine trucks, charging between $1,200 and $5,000 for those services.

    Matanuska and Spurlock are scheduled for trial to begin on October 20, 2025, for conspiring to violate the CAA and multiple substantive CAA violations (18 U.S.C. § 371; 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(2)(C)).

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation.


    United States v. Onill Vasquez Lozada, et al.

    • No. 1:24-CR-00075 (District of Rhode Island)
    • ECS Assistant Chief Stephen DaPonte
    • ECS Senior Trial Attorney Gary Donner
    • AUSA John McAdams

    On April 29, 2025, Onill Vasquez Lozada pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing, sponsoring, and exhibiting birds in an animal fighting venture in violation of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)(1), (b), (d); 18 U.S.C. § 49(a)). Sentencing is scheduled for July 29, 2025.

    Lozada is one of six defendants charged with violating the Animal Welfare Act in connection with a cockfighting operation. According to the indictment, on March 6, 2022, Miguel Delgado hosted a series of individual cockfights, known as “derbies,” at his Providence home. Delgado is also charged with sponsoring and exhibiting roosters in an animal fighting venture on multiple dates, buying and transporting sharp instruments, or “gaffs,” for use in the cockfights, and unlawfully possessing roosters for use in an animal fighting venture.

    Antonio Ledee Rivera and Lozada were charged with unlawfully possessing roosters in April 2021 for use in an animal fighting venture and for sponsoring and exhibiting roosters at a March 2022 derby at Delgado’ s home. Rivera was also charged in connection with an earlier derby at Delgado’ s home.

    Germidez Kingsley Jamie, Jose Rivera, and Luis Castillo are charged with sponsoring and exhibiting roosters at an animal fighting venture at the March 2022 derby. Jamie and Jose Rivera are also charged with one count of buying and transporting gaffs for use in an animal fighting venture.

    The Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General, the Postal Inspection Service, the Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigation, and the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals conducted the investigation. The following agencies also assisted: the U.S. Marshals Service; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Rhode Island State Police; Massachusetts State Police; Animal Rescue League of Boston’s Law Enforcement Division; and Providence, Woonsocket, and Attleboro, MA, Police Departments.


    United States v. Michael Kandis

    • No. 5:25-CR-00005 (Northern District of West Virginia)
    • ECS Trial Attorney Lauren Steele
    • AUSA Max Nogay

    On April 30, 2025, Michael Kandis pleaded guilty to a Lacey Act Trafficking offense (16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(2)(A), 3373(d)(2)).

    Kandis is a reptile dealer in Wheeling, West Virginia. Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) conservation officers became acquainted with Kandis through a long-term investigation in which they operated in a covert capacity at various reptile shows throughout the Midwest.

    During their investigation, the IDNR officers conducted several wildlife transactions involving Kandis. In October 2019, Kandis purchased 47 snakes from undercover officers, 25 of which were bullsnakes, for a total price of $1,415. The sale was conducted in Noblesville, Indiana. Bullsnakes are a native species in Indiana, and it is illegal to sell them under Indiana law. Kandis later transported the snakes from Indiana to West Virginia to sell.

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources conducted the investigation.


    Sentencings


    United States v. Pavel Ivanovich Turlak, et al.

    • No. 2:24-CR-00057 (Eastern District of Washington)
    • AUSA Dan Fruchter
    • AUSA Jacob Brooks
    • RCEC Gwendolyn Brooks

    On April 2, 2025, a court sentenced Pavel Ivanovich Turlak, and his Spokane-based trucking companies: PT Express, LLC; Spokane Truck Service, LLC; and Pauls Trans, LLC. They previously pleaded guilty to conspiring to illegally violate Clean Air Act (CAA) emissions controls and to fraudulently obtaining hundreds of thousands of dollars in COVID-19 relief funding (42 U.S.C. § 7413 (c)(2)(C);18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343, 287). All defendants will complete five-year terms of probation, with the companies subject to an environmental compliance plan. All defendants are jointly and severally responsible for $317,389 in restitution to the Small Business Administration.

    Between August 2017 and November 2023, Turlak purchased illegal “delete tune” packages from Ryan Hugh Milliken and his company, Hardaway Solutions, LLC. They designed this software to disable and defeat emissions controls and monitoring systems required under the CAA. Turlak loaded the delete tunes into the trucks used by his own businesses, as well as trucks of co-conspirators who were customers of Spokane Truck Service, LLC. Milliken created and sold custom software delete tunes to Turlak for vehicles based on specifications Turlak outlined. Turlak then charged as much as $3,500 to diesel truck owners to “delete” and “tune” their vehicles by tampering with their pollution monitoring devices.

    In addition to violating the CAA, Turlak fraudulently obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars in COVID-19 relief funding. Between March 2020 and August 2021, Turlak fraudulently applied for and received more than $300,000 in federal funding that was designated to go to eligible small businesses during the pandemic. Turlak and his businesses were not eligible to receive this funding due to their ongoing participation in this criminal conspiracy.

    Milliken and Hardaway Solutions pleaded guilty in November 2024 to conspiracy and to violating the CAA (18 U.S.C. § 371; 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(2)(C)). They were sentenced in January 2025 to complete five-year terms of probation, during which the company will be responsible for implementing an environmental compliance plan. Both defendants are jointly and severally responsible for paying a $75,000 fine.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation with assistance from the EPA National Enforcement Investigations Center, the Small Business Administration Office of Inspector General, and the Spokane Police Department.


    United States v. Charles Limmer

    • No. 1:23-CR-00405 (Eastern District of New York)
    • AUSA Sean M. Sherman

    On April 3, 2025, a court sentenced Charles Limmer to two years of home detention. Limmer pleaded guilty to conspiracy after prosecutors charged him with Endangered Species Act, Lacey Act, and smuggling violations for trafficking in numerous specimens of butterflies (18 U.S.C. § 371). This protected species is known as “birdwings” due to their exceptional size, angular wings, and birdlike flight. As part of the plea, Limmer forfeited 1,600 specimens.

    Limmer obtained a license in 2016 to import and export wildlife.  After Limmer and his business violated numerous import/export regulations, the Fish and Wildlife Service suspended his license.

    Between October 2022 and September 2023, Limmer and others imported and exported at least 59 illegal shipments containing wildlife, valued at approximately $216,000. They falsely labelled the wildlife as “decorative wall coverings” or “origami paper creations.”

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation.


    United States v. Idrissa Bagayoko

    • No. 1:23-CR-00265 (District of Maryland)
    • AUSA Kimberly Phillips
    • RCEC Kertisha Dixon
    • RCEC David Lastra

    On April 3, 2025, a court sentenced Idrissa Bagayoko to time served, followed by one year of supervised release to include three months’ home confinement for transporting and selling unregistered pesticides. Bagayoko also will pay $5,640 in restitution to reimburse the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the cost of destroying unregistered pesticides.

    A jury convicted Bagayoko in November 2024 on two counts for transporting and selling the unregistered pesticide Sniper DDVP. The jury found Bagayoko guilty of violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) (7 U.S.C. §§ 136j(a)(1) (A), 136l(b)(1)(B); 49 U.S.C. § 5124).

    Bagayoko owned and operated Maliba Trading, LLC. According to evidence presented at trial, on September 29, 2021, Bagayoko drove from New York to Maryland and sold two boxes of Sniper DDVP to an individual in Maryland. Police later stopped Bagayoko in Elkton, Maryland, with 18 additional boxes of Sniper DDVP containing a total of 1,728 bottles.

    Samples taken from the bottles revealed the presence of dichlorvos. EPA has classified dichlorvos as a probable human carcinogen. In total, the defendant transported more than 330 pounds of dichlorvos (a reportable quantity) without requisite shipping papers.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division, the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General, and the Elkton Maryland Police Department conducted the investigation.

    Related Press Release: District of Maryland | New York Business Owner Sentenced for Illegally Transporting and Selling Probable Carcinogen | United States Department of Justice


    United States v. Redemption Repairs & Performance

    • No. 4:24-CR-40016 (Western District of Arkansas)
    • AUSA Sydney Stanley

    On April 3, 2025, a court sentenced Redemption Repairs & Performance (RRP) to pay a $50,000 fine and complete a three-year term of probation.

    RRP pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Air Act (CAA) for modifying and deleting the emissions control systems of diesel engines and tampering with and rendering inaccurate the vehicles’ onboard diagnostic (OBD) systems (42 U.S.C § 7413(c)(2)(C)).

    RRP is a truck repair shop specializing in diesel engine repairs and performance located in Texarkana, Arkansas. Between May 2020 and October 2022, the company falsified, tampered with, and rendered inaccurate monitoring devices required to be maintained and followed under the CAA. After removing or altering the emission control equipment on diesel trucks, RRP modified the diesel trucks’ OBD systems to prevent detection of the removal and disabling of the equipment. The company performed this service on approximately 50 vehicles, charging between $2,600-$2,700 per truck.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation. 


    United States v. Chamness Dirt Works, Inc., et al.

    • No. 3:24-CR-00430 (District of Oregon)
    • AUSA Bryan Chinwuba
    • RCEC Karla Perrin

    On April 3, 2025, a court sentenced Ryan Richter, Ronald Chamness, Horseshoe Grove, LLC, and Chamness Dirt Works, Inc., for violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    Property management company Horseshoe Grove pleaded guilty to violating the CAA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for asbestos work practice standards (42 U.S.C. §§ 7412(h),7413(c)(1)). Horseshoe Grove’s owner and operator Ryan Richter pleaded guilty to a CAA negligent endangerment violation (42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(4)). Construction and demolition company Chamness Dirt Works pleaded guilty to violating the CAA NESHAP for asbestos, and company owner and president, Ronald Chamness, pleaded guilty to a CAA negligent endangerment violation (42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(4)).

    Horseshoe Grove and Chamness Dirt Works were sentenced to complete three-year terms of probation. Richter and Ronald Chamness were each sentenced to five-year terms of probation and ordered to remediate the impacted site in accordance with stipulated conditions of probation. No fine was sought against the parties due to the cost of remediating the site to remove any remaining asbestos. The approximate cost of the remediation was $175,000.

    In November 2022, Horseshoe Grove acquired a property in The Dalles, Oregon, which included a mobile home park and two dilapidated apartment buildings. The previous owner provided the new buyers with an asbestos survey from December 2021, which identified more than 5,000 square feet of friable chrysotile asbestos within the two deteriorating buildings, with levels ranging from two percent to 25 percent. The survey also noted non-friable asbestos in various building materials, including siding and flooring, throughout the apartments. Despite these findings, Horseshoe Grove failed to implement the necessary precautions for asbestos removal.

    In March 2023, Chamness Dirt Works began demolishing the two asbestos-laden structures without following proper removal procedures. Chamness did not engage a certified asbestos abatement contractor, did not wet the asbestos-containing debris, and dumped the material in a regular landfill.

    Horseshoe Grove paid Chamness Dirt Works a total of $49,330 for the demolition, which did not meet the required safety standards.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation.


    United States v. John Waldrop, et al.

    • No. 1:23-CR-00378 (Eastern District of New York)
    • ECS Senior Trial Attorney Ryan Connors
    • AUSA Anna Karamigios

    On April 9, 2025, the court sentenced Dr. John Waldrop and Toney Jones for their involvement in the largest seizure of bird mounts in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) history. Waldrop pleaded guilty to conspiracy to smuggle wildlife and Endangered Species Act (ESA) violations. He was ordered to pay a $900,000 fine and will complete a three-year term of probation (18 U.S.C. § 371; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1538(e), 1540(b)(1)). This is one of the largest fines ever imposed in an ESA case. Jones was sentenced to complete a six-month term of probation for violating the ESA (16 U.S.C. §§ 1538(e), 1540(b)(1)).

    Over a period of five years, Waldrop illegally imported thousands of museum-quality taxidermy bird mounts and preserved eggs to build a personal collection. His collection of 1,401 taxidermy bird mounts and 2,594 eggs included:

    • Four eagles protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
    • 179 bird and 193 egg species listed in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and
    • 212 bird and 32 egg species protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

    This included extremely rare specimens such as three eggs from the Nordmann’s greenshank, an Asian shorebird with only 900 to 1,600 remaining birds in the wild.

    Between 2016 and 2020, Waldrop imported birds and eggs without the required declarations and permits. After USFWS inspectors at John F. Kennedy International Airport and elsewhere intercepted several shipments, Waldrop recruited Jones, who worked on his Georgia farm, to receive the packages. Jones also deposited approximately $525,000 in a bank account that Waldrop then used to pay for the imports and hide his involvement. Waldrop and Jones used online sales sites such as eBay and Etsy to buy birds and eggs from around the world, including Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

    In total, Waldrop spent more than $1.2 million to illegally build this collection. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Waldrop abandoned his collection, which was distributed to the USFWS forensic laboratory, the Smithsonian, and other museums and universities.

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation.

    Related Press Release: Office of Public Affairs | Two Men Sentenced in Largest-Ever Bird Mount Trafficking Case | United States Department of Justice


    United States v. John D. Murphy

    • No. 1:24-CR-10074 (District of Massachusetts)
    • ECS Senior Trial Attorney Matthew Morris
    • AUSA Danial Bennett
    • AUSA Kaitlin Brown
    • ECS Paralegal Jonah Fruchtman

    On April 9, 2025, a court sentenced John D. Murphy to nine months’ incarceration, and three months and one day of home confinement, followed by three years’ supervised release. Murphy was also ordered to pay a $10,000 fine. Murphy pleaded guilty to violating the Animal Welfare Act for possessing dogs to use in an animal fighting venture (7 U.S.C. § 2156(b)).

    Prosecutors charged Murphy after investigators identified him on recorded calls discussing dog fighting in a separate investigation. Subsequent court-authorized searches of his Facebook accounts revealed Murphy’s extensive involvement in dogfighting.

    On June 7, 2023, authorities executed a search warrant at Murphy’s residence and another home, seizing 13 pit bull-type dogs. Several dogs exhibited scarring consistent with animal fighting. Authorities also recovered equipment used in fights, including syringes, anabolic steroids, a skin stapler, forceps, and equipment and literature for training dogs.

    The investigation revealed that Murphy often communicated with other dogfighters via Facebook and posted dogfighting-related photos to his Facebook account. Additionally, Murphy posted videos depicting pit bull-type dogs tethered to treadmills commonly used to physically condition dogs for fighting.

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General conducted the investigation with assistance from the following agencies: Homeland Security Investigations; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service; U.S. Marshals Service; Maine State Police; New Hampshire State Police; Massachusetts Office of the State Auditor; Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; and Police Departments in Hanson, Boston, and Acton, Massachusetts.

    Related Press Release: District of Massachusetts | Massachusetts Man Sentenced to More Than a Year in Prison for Dogfighting | United States Department of Justice


    United States v. Jose Correa

    • No. 1:24-CR-00685 (Southern District of New York)
    • AUSA Alexandra Rothman

    On April 10, 2025, a court sentenced Jose Correa to pay a $10,000 fine and complete a two-year term of probation. Correa pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Air Act for negligently releasing asbestos into the ambient air (42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(4)).

    Between November and December 2022, Correa removed asbestos-containing floor tiles and mastic from a supermarket in Manhattan without hiring an asbestos abatement contractor. Instead, the material was removed by construction workers who were not provided with protective gear, thereby releasing asbestos into the ambient air and placing the workers in imminent danger of death and serious bodily injury.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation.


    United States v. Coby Brummett

    • No. 1:24-PO-00040 (Western District of Virginia)
    • AUSA Corey Hall

    On April 11, 2025, a court sentenced Coby Brummett to 30 days’ incarceration with credit for time served. Brummett was also ordered to pay more than $6,200 in restitution for illegally digging and removing ginseng from within the boundaries of Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. Additionally, Brummett is banned from the Park for three years (36 C.F.R. § 2.1(c)(3)).

    An investigation by Park Service rangers determined that Brummett dug up more than 300 ginseng roots from within the confines of the park.

    The restitution will be paid to the National Park Service, which conducted the investigation.

    Related Press Release: Western District of Virginia | Virginia Man Sentenced for Ginseng Poaching at National Park | United States Department of Justice


    United States v. Royce Gillham

    • No. 2:24-CR-14046 (Southern District of Florida)
    • ECS Senior Trial Attorney Adam Cullman
    • AUSA Daniel Funk

    On April 11, 2025, a court ordered Royce Gillham to pay $2,857,029 in restitution to ACT Fuels.

    This is in addition to the court’s sentence of 37 months’ incarceration, followed by three years of supervised release, ordered on March 14, 2025. Gillham, the former general manager of a biofuel producer based in Fort Pierce, Florida, pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud and conspiring to make false claims (18 U.S.C.§ 371).

    This biofuel company produced and sold renewable fuel and fuel credits and claimed to turn various feedstocks into biodiesel. When reporting the number of gallons produced to the Internal Revenue Service and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Gillham and his employer vastly overstated their production volume in an effort to generate more credits. When auditors sought more information from the company, Gillham and his co-conspirators gave them false information about their fuel production and customers.

    The scheme generated more than $7 million in fraudulent EPA renewable fuels credits and sought over $6 million in fraudulent tax credits connected to the purported production of biodiesel.

    ACT Fuels purchased the fraudulent fuel credits in question and had to buy replacement credits when authorities found that Gillham’s company produced fraudulent renewable identification numbers or RINs.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigations conducted the investigation.


    United States v. Mold Wranglers, et al.

    • No. 6:24-CR-00025 (District of Montana)
    • AUSA Ryan Weldon

    On April 14, 2025, a court sentenced Mold Wranglers, Inc., a Kalispell-based hazardous material mitigation company, to pay a $50,000 fine, and complete a two-year term of probation, to include an environmental compliance plan. The company also will pay $348,000 in restitution to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Mold Wranglers pleaded guilty to a False Claims Act conspiracy for filing false claims with the VA for lead paint abatement work that was never performed (18 U.S.C. § 286).

    Between 2018 and 2019, Mold Wranglers claimed it performed lead abatement work at the Freedom’s Path Fort Harrison facility. The project consisted of converting residential units for low-income veterans and their families. Mold Wranglers submitted documentation to the VA for work including painting over lead-based paint with encapsulating paint. However, the company failed to comply with federal regulations governing lead work, as its employees were not certified to handle lead, and it did not notify the Environmental Protection Agency of the work as required.

    Additionally, Mold Wranglers applied the encapsulating paint in a manner inconsistent with the manufacturer’s specifications.

    The agreement the company made with the VA specified it was not performing an actual abatement but merely “aesthetically repairing the paint and finishing the homes.” Despite this agreement, the company submitted 11 false payment requests, claiming to have performed lead abatement work, and received a total of $456,000 in federal funds for work that did not meet the necessary standards for lead abatement.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division and Office of Inspector General, The Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development conducted the investigation.

    Related Press Release: District of Montana | Helena real estate agent convicted of felony and fined $150,000 for failing to provide lead-based paint disclosures for veterans residing in Fort Harrison rental housing | United States Department of Justice


    United States v. Melanie Ann Carlin

    • No. 6:24-CR-00024 (District of Montana)
    • AUSA Ryan Weldon

    On April 14, 2025, a court sentenced Melanie Ann Carlin to pay a $150,000 fine and complete a three-year term of probation. Carlin pleaded guilty to violating the knowing endangerment provision of the Toxic Substances Control Act for failing to provide required lead-based paint disclosures to veterans residing at Freedom’s Path Fort Harrison in Helena, Montana (15 U.S.C. § 2615(b)(2)(A)). Carlin’s actions led to the exposure of veterans and their families to dangerous levels of lead, a hazardous substance known to cause serious health issues, particularly for children.

    Carlin owns a property management company called 406 Properties, Inc. She was responsible for overseeing rental units at Freedom’s Path, a housing facility with units built prior to 1978. The facility provided affordable homes for veterans and their families. Between September 2019 and September 2021, Carlin knowingly failed to provide mandated lead disclosures. Carlin knew that the property was built before 1978, which meant that the presence of lead paint was likely.

    In 2019, after receiving an email from the Montana Department of Commerce about lead paint concerns, Carlin signed and submitted forms for the units, falsely indicating that they were either free of lead paint or built after 1978. Despite having first-hand knowledge that lead paint was present in the buildings, Carlin continued to neglect her duty to disclose this information to tenants.

    In September 2021, an 18-month-old child living in one of the units ingested lead paint chips.

    Subsequent medical tests revealed the child had dangerously high blood lead levels and required lead poisoning treatment. Carlin admitted to agents that she knew about the lead paint disclosure requirement but failed to give residents the required notice. Carlin’s failure to act placed veterans and their families at imminent risk of serious harm.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division, The Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development conducted the investigation.

    Related Press Release: District of Montana | Helena real estate agent convicted of felony and fined $150,000 for failing to provide lead-based paint disclosures for veterans residing in Fort Harrison rental housing | United States Department of Justice


    United States v. Aghorn Operating, Inc., et al.

    On April 15, 2025, Aghorn Operating, Inc., Trent Day, and Kodiak Roustabout, Inc., entered guilty pleas and were sentenced in relation to Worker Safety, Clean Air Act (CAA) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violations. Day pleaded guilty to a CAA negligent endangerment charge and was sentenced to serve five months’ incarceration, followed by one year of supervised release (42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(4)). Aghorn pleaded guilty to CAA negligent endangerment and an Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) willful violation count for the death of an employee, Jacob Dean, and his wife, Natalee Dean (42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(4); 29 U.S.C. § 666(e)). Aghorn was sentenced to pay a $1 million fine and complete a two-year term of probation. Kodiak pleaded guilty to making a materially false statement (18 U.S.C. §1001) regarding well integrity testing that is required under the SDWA and was sentenced to pay a $400,000 fine and complete a one-year term of probation.

    Aghorn owns and operates oil wells and leases in Texas. Kodiak performed oilfield support and maintenance services for Aghorn. Day was a vice president for both Aghorn and Kodiak. The CAA and OSHA charges stem from the defendants releasing hydrogen sulfide that caused the deaths of Aghorn employee, Jacob Dean, and his wife, Natalee Dean. Both victims were overcome by hydrogen sulfide at Aghorn’s facility in Odessa. Aghorn and Day later obstructed the investigation into the Deans’ deaths. The SDWA-related violation stems from false statements made by Kodiak regarding the mechanical integrity of Aghorn injection wells in forms and pressure charts filed with the State of Texas Railroad Commission. In addition to the fine, Aghorn will guarantee that at least 33 tests conducted for Aghorn wells during its year of probation are witnessed or conducted by a third party.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation, with assistance from the Texas Railroad Commission, Ector County Environmental Enforcement, and the Odessa Fire Department.

    Related Press Release: Office of Public Affairs | Oilfield Company, Its Executive, and a Support Services Company Plead Guilty and Are Sentenced for Worker Safety, Clean Air Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act Violations Resulting in the Death of an Employee and His Spouse | United States Department of Justice


    United States v. Justin Taylor

    • No. 6:24-CR-00013 (Southern District of Georgia)
    • AUSA Darron J. Hubbard

    On April 15, 2025, a court sentenced Justin Taylor to complete a five-year term of probation and pay $279,642 in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service. Taylor pleaded guilty to conspiracy to tamper with a monitoring device and filing a fraudulent tax return (18 U.S.C. § 371; 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)).

    Between January 2018 and January 2021, Taylor worked as a mechanic. Using a high-powered computer that supported diagnostic tools for heavy-duty logging equipment, Taylor performed emission-control “deletes” for more than 200 owners of diesel engines.

    The changes Taylor made to the emission controls on those machines disabled the electronic monitoring devices and methods required under the Clean Air Act. Taylor routinely charged $2,000 for this service, earning more than $1.2 million during this period while reporting only $166,853 in income.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigations conducted the investigation.


    United States v. Johnnie Lee Nelson, et al.

    • No. 1:23-CR-00787 (District of New Jersey)
    • ECS Senior Trial Attorney Ethan Eddy
    • AUSA Michelle Goldman

    On April 16, 2025, a court sentenced Johnnie Lee Nelson to complete a two-year term of probation to include one year of home confinement. Nelson also will perform 100 hours of community service. Nelson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess, train, and transport dogs for an animal fighting venture and to sponsor and exhibit dogs in an animal fighting venture (18 U.S.C. § 371).

    On March 23, 2019, officers responded to an emergency call at an auto body garage in Upper Deerfield Township, New Jersey. They found a fighting pit in the garage, along with two pit bull-type dogs, still fighting, that had been placed into an inoperable car on a lift in the garage as the participants fled on foot. The dogs later died from injuries they sustained while fighting. Officers also found an uninjured pit bull-type dog in a car just outside the garage, along with a rudimentary veterinary suture and skin staple kit in a bag.

    Evidence revealed that Nelson’s co-defendant, Tommy Watson, organized the fight, and that their dog was scheduled for the next fight on deck. They jointly possessed and trained this dog for this particular fight, as shown by cell phone video evidence. Nelson and Watson participated in a dog fighting operation they called “From Da Bottom Kennels.” From Da Bottom Kennels and others live-streamed dog fight videos from that garage via the Telegram app. Watson is scheduled for trial to begin on June 4, 2025.

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Homeland Security Investigations conducted the investigation.


    United States v. Sarmad Ghaled Dafer, et al.

    • Nos. 3:24-CR-00615, 23-CR-01879 (Southern District of California)
    • AUSA Sabrina L. Feve
    • AUSA Robert Miller
    • Former AUSA Melanie Pierson

    On April 18, 2025, a court sentenced Sarmad Ghaled Dafer to four months’ incarceration, followed by three years’ supervised release, to include 180 days of home confinement. Dafer also will pay $23,502 in restitution to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reimburse costs for quarantining three Mexican spider monkeys at the San Diego Zoo. Dafer is jointly and severally responsible along with co-defendant Sarkon Yonan Hanna for the restitution.

    On August 14, 2023, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers stopped a man and woman attempting to drive a van into the United States from Mexico. During an initial inspection, a CBP officer discovered an animal carrier hidden behind the rear seat that contained live monkeys. The CBP officer referred the occupants and vehicle for a secondary examination. Officers found three baby spider monkeys hidden in the van. The officers seized the monkeys and placed them in quarantine.

    A search of the co-conspirator’s phone led to evidence that Dafer purchased and coordinated the smuggling of monkeys across the border on three occasions, between June 2022 and August 2023.

    Baby Mexican spider monkeys continue to nurse throughout their first year and ordinarily are not fully weaned and independent until they turn two. Most baby Mexican spider monkeys will continue to stay close to their mothers until they are approximately four years old.

    Dafer’s Facebook messages and photos show that he intentionally sought baby monkeys to make the smuggling process easier. He even posted a photo of a baby spider monkey under a heat lamp in a small cage. This suggests that Dafer knew that the baby monkey he was selling had been prematurely separated from its mother.

    Mexican spider monkey mothers will not voluntarily relinquish their young and the entire troop of spider monkeys will try to defend the mother and baby from perceived threats. Consequently, to capture the babies, poachers will typically have to kill or harm the mother and entire troop. In this case, genetic analysis confirmed the three babies each had different mothers.

    Dafer pleaded guilty to conspiracy, and Hanna pleaded guilty to smuggling (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 545.) Hanna was sentenced on March 14, 2025, to time served, followed by two years’ supervised release, along with the restitution. Hanna was in the car that attempted to smuggle the three monkeys into the United States from Mexico on August 14, 2023.

    Homeland Security Investigations, Customs and Border Protection, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation. 

    Case photo of two of the three monkeys rescued by CBP.

    Related Press Release: Southern District of California | Wildlife Trafficker Sentenced for Smuggling Baby Spider Monkeys | United States Department of Justice


    United States v. Antonio Pereira, et al.

    • Nos. 3:24-CR-00824, 3:25-CR-00001 (District of New Jersey)
    • ECS Trial Attorney Christopher Hale
    • AUSA Kelly Lyons

    On April 22, 2025, a court sentenced Antonio Periera to pay a $4,000 fine and complete a two-year term of probation. Periera and co-defendant Darren McClave pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice (18 U.S.C. § 371). McClave is scheduled for sentencing on June 30, 2025.

    McClave, a captain of a clam vessel based out of New Jersey, participated in a scheme to illegally harvest and sell excess scallops, violating federal fishing regulations. While clam vessels are allowed to take a limited quantity of scallops as bycatch, McClave routinely exceeded these limits and sold the surplus to Pereira, a seafood dealer. To cover up the overfishing, McClave and Pereira worked together to falsify the Fishing Vessel Trip Reports and Dealer Reports required by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation.


    United States v. J.H. Baxter & Co., Inc. et al.

    • No. 6:24-CR-00441 (District of Oregon)
    • ECS Trial Attorney Stephen Foster
    • ECS Trial Attorney Rachel M. Roberts
    • AUSA William M. McLaren
    • RCEC Karla G. Perrin
    • ECS Law Clerk Maria Wallace

    On April 22, 2025, a court sentenced J.H. Baxter & Co., Inc., and J.H. Baxter & Co., a California Limited Partnership, collectively, to pay a total of $1.5 million in criminal fines. In addition, both companies were ordered to serve five-year terms of probation. The companies’ president, Georgia Baxter-Krause, was sentenced to 90 days’ incarceration, followed by one year of supervised release.

    The two companies (collectively J.H. Baxter) were responsible for a wood treatment facility in Eugene, Oregon. Both pleaded guilty to charges of illegally treating hazardous waste and knowingly violating the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(1)). Baxter-Krause pleaded guilty to two counts of making false statements in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. § 6928 (d)(3)).

    J.H. Baxter used hazardous chemicals to treat and preserve wood at its Eugene facility. The wastewater from the wood preserving processes was hazardous waste. J.H. Baxter operated a wastewater treatment unit to treat and evaporate the waste. For years, however, when the facility accumulated too much water on site, employees transferred this water to a wood treatment retort to “boil it off,” greatly reducing the volume. J.H. Baxter would then remove the waste that remained, label it as hazardous waste, and ship it offsite for disposal.

    J.H. Baxter was never issued a RCRA permit to treat its waste in this manner. The facility was also subject to CAA emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants. However, employees were directed to open all vents on the retorts, allowing discharges to the surrounding air.

    State inspectors requested information about J.H. Baxter’s practice of boiling off hazardous wastewater. On two separate occasions, Baxter-Krause made false statements in response to these requests regarding the dates the practice took place, and which retorts were used. The investigation determined that Baxter-Krause knew J.H. Baxter maintained detailed daily production logs for each retort.

    J.H. Baxter boiled off hazardous process wastewater in its wood treatment retorts on 136 days. Baxter-Krause was also aware that during this time the company used four of its five retorts to boil off wastewater.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation with assistance from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon State Police. 

    Related Press Release: Environment and Natural Resources Division | United States v. J.H. Baxter & Co., Inc. et al. | United States Department of Justice


    United States v. Dlubak Glass Company

    • No. 3:24-CR-00533 (Northern District of Texas)
    • ECS Trial Attorney Lauren Steele
    • ECS Senior Trial Attorney Gary Donner

    On April 29, 2025, a court sentenced Dlubak Glass Company (DGC) to pay a $100,000 fine and complete a four-year term of probation. The company pleaded guilty to making a false statement regarding the storage of hazardous waste (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)).

    DGC is in the business of processing and recycling glass products, including CRT (cathode ray tube) glass. CRTs have three components: a panel, a funnel, and a neck. Both the panel and the funnel are made of glass. CRT funnel glass contains significant amounts of lead, while panel glass typically contains lead in much lower quantities. Because of the presence of lead, used CRTs that are transported, stored, or disposed of can be considered a characteristic hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

    DGC operated facilities in several states, including locations in Arizona, Texas, and Oklahoma. Pursuant to a Consent Order, DGC agreed to ship all the CRT glass at its Arizona facility offsite for recycling or disposal as hazardous waste. DGC later shipped approximately 4,000 tons of CRT glass from Yuma, Arizona, to its Texas facility, telling regulators that it would recycle the material by incorporating it into commercial products.

    When Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) inspected DGC’s Texas facility they observed piles of CRT glass onsite. DGC’s plant manager told inspectors that the only CRT glass present at the location was “processed panel glass containing no lead.” Dlubak employees later repeated this assertion in a follow-up meeting with TCEQ. However, further investigation determined that the glass in question was composed of both panel and funnel glass, a fact which DGC was aware of when it made these statements to TCEQ.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation.


    United States v. Tribar Technologies, Inc.

    • No. 2:24-CR-20552 (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • ECS Senior Counsel Kris Dighe
    • AUSA Karen Reynolds
    • RCEC Sasha Reyes

    On April 29, 2025, a court sentenced Tribar Technologies, Inc. (Tribar), to pay a $200,000 fine, complete a five-year term of probation and enact an environmental compliance plan. Tribar also will pay $20,000 in restitution to the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    The company pleaded guilty to negligently violating a pretreatment standard under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1317(d) and 1319(c)(1)(A)).

    Tribar manufactures automobile parts and presently operates five active plants in southeast Michigan. Plant 5 is a chrome plating facility located in Wixom, Michigan. It uses an electroplating process to apply chrome finishing to plastic automotive parts. Plant 5 generates wastewater that contains chromium compounds, including hexavalent chromium, a known carcinogen.

    On July 23, 2022, Plant 5 accumulated approximately 15,000 gallons of untreated wastewater containing high concentrations of hexavalent chromium. This wastewater had higher levels of pollutants than the wastewater typically generated from Plant 5 operations. During the week beginning July 25, 2022, Plant 5 employees attempted to treat this wastewater in a holding tank to reduce the amount of hexavalent chromium before putting it into the Plant 5 wastewater treatment system. By the end of the week, the wastewater still contained high concentrations of hexavalent chromium.

    On July 29, 2022, an employee discharged approximately 10,000 gallons of insufficiently treated wastewater from the holding tank into the Plant 5 wastewater treatment system. This discharge activated wastewater treatment system alarms, indicating that the wastewater required further treatment before it could be discharged to the Wixom sanitary sewer system. The employee disabled approximately 460 alarms and discharged the wastewater to the Wixom sanitary sewer system, and ultimately to the Wixom publicly owned treatment works, without completing the treatment necessary to remove chromium from the wastewater, as required by Tribar’s Industrial Pretreatment Program Permit.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation. 


    View All Environmental Crimes Bulletins

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Mfume, Maryland Congressional Delegation Members Meet on Defending Federal Investments, Services for Maryland

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Kweisi Mfume (MD-07)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Thursday, members of Maryland’s Congressional Delegation met to discuss their efforts to defend federal investments for Maryland’s priorities and ensure constituents can continue to access essential public services. Their meeting came as Congress moves into appropriations season and following the Trump Administration’s release of its “skinny” budget proposal the week before last.

     “It is important for Marylanders to know that their Congressional Delegation hears and shares in their disbelief about what is happening to this nation under Donald Trump and Elon Musk,” said Congressman Mfume. “From the attacks on federal workers, to potential Medicaid cuts, to the vile economic policies and uncertainty of tariff wars that threaten the Port of Baltimore, longshoremen, small businesses, and everyday Americans – this Delegation will continue to stand up for all who call our state home. We will resist, push back, and resist again as we demand accountability from this White House.” 

    “Federal Team Maryland has always been laser-focused on delivering for the people of our state. Even as this Administration works to dismantle critical programs for working families and our communities, we’re committed to working together to defend investments for Maryland and to support our federal workers who provide vital services to the American people,” said Senator Van Hollen.

    “Maryland has suffered disproportionately by this President’s callous cuts. Team Maryland sees and hears from our constituents suffering every day: in the halls of Congress, at our grocery stores, in our communities, at our churches. To our civil servants and to all Marylanders struggling under this Administration — we hear you, and we are in this fight for you,” said Senator Alsobrooks.

    “Team Maryland is working every day on behalf of federal employees and Maryland families impacted by Republicans’ proposed cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and other essential services,” said Congressman Hoyer. “Just as we worked to ensure the rebuilding of Francis Scott Key Bridge was fully covered, we are working to protect investments in our state from the Trump Administration and we will continue to advocate for the health and well-being of Marylanders and our nation.”

    “Team Maryland is working together to oppose the Trump regime’s slash-and-burn tactics against federal workers and federal programs,” said Representative Raskin. “We know that Maryland families are paying the price for the president’s rogue actions, from his mass firings of public servants to the ‘Trump Tariffs’ that are raising the prices of essential goods. We’ll keep fighting to defend the rule of law, the honor of the civil service and the programmatic achievements of American democracy.

    “This Administration has been all chaos and no strategy. They cut federal funding to test rape kits, they cut support to our food banks, and they cut a small agency that investigates every line of duty firefighter death in this country. These cuts are not just deeply cruel, they are also shortsighted,” said Congresswoman Elfreth.

    “We cannot forget that one in nine families in Maryland’s 6th District depend on SNAP—and half of them are children,” said Representative McClain Delaney. “As Maryland’s voice on the House Agriculture Committee, I’m proud to represent our state and ensure that Maryland families and farmers remain at the heart of the fight to protect SNAP and other essential federal programs from cruel and senseless cuts.”

    “Team Maryland is united in our effort to defeat the Trump Administration’s assault on democracy in Congress, the courts and in our communities. The reckless cuts of skilled workers and essential services are bad for the country, but disproportionately so for Maryland, which is home to so many federal agencies, research universities and a Port just getting back on its feet after a tragic bridge collapse. I am proud to be in this fight with my patriotic and committed colleagues on behalf of our constituents,” said Congressman Olszewski.

    Video of the members’ press availability following the meeting is available here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Fischer, Colleagues Reintroduce Bill to Strengthen Farm Safety Net

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nebraska Deb Fischer
    U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, joined her Senate colleagues in reintroducing the Federal Agriculture Risk Management Enhancement and Resilience (FARMER) Act, to strengthen crop insurance and make higher levels of coverage more affordable for producers. U.S. Senator John Hoeven (R-N.D.) sponsored the legislation.
    “For decades, Nebraska’s ag producers have helped feed our nation and the world. As Congress works to pass a Farm Bill, protecting and improving crop insurance for our farmers is one of my top priorities. I am proud to support this legislation to improve the farm safety net, and I look forward to working with Senator Hoeven and our colleagues to get this bill signed into law,” said Fischer.
    “Crop insurance remains the number one risk management tool for our farmers, but it doesn’t provide the kind of affordable coverage options that all producers need. The result has been the repeated need for ad-hoc disaster assistance. Ultimately, producers buying higher levels of coverage will lessen the need for ad-hoc disaster assistance in the future. That means less emergency spending by the federal government, greater certainty for farmers and a more resilient ag economy. Those are wins across the board,” said Hoeven. 
    In addition to Fischer and Hoeven, the legislation is cosponsored by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.), and U.S. Senators Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Jim Justice (R-W. Va.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa). BACKGROUND:  
    Specifically, the FARMER ACT would:
    Increase premium support for higher levels of crop insurance coverage, which will enhance affordability and reduce the need for future ad-hoc disaster assistance.
    Improve the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) by increasing premium support and expanding the coverage level, providing producers with an additional level of protection.
    Direct the Risk Management Agency (RMA) to conduct a study to improve the effectiveness of SCO in large counties.
    Not require producers to choose between purchasing enhanced crop insurance coverage or participating in Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs, giving them flexibility to make decisions that work best for their operations.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Scotland: ‘Consciously cruel’ – UK social security system is pushing people beyond the brink – new report

    Source: Amnesty International –

    Human rights in the UK in crisis as new report exposes crushing evidence of a social security system ruining lives

    • Discrimination and dehumanisation reported as rife as punitive system drives poverty by policy 

    • ‘I am barely holding on financially. I always feel just one step away from rock bottom’ – Isla

    • ‘Lives are being ruined by a system that is consciously cruel – it erodes dignity by design’– Neil Cowan, Amnesty 

    Amnesty International UK’s new report takes a deep dive into the UK social security system. The unique research is an extensive look through the lens of human rights violations across our basic rights to housing, food, education, healthcare and social security.  

    The evidence delivers damning conclusions on how the system processes, punishes, harms and dehumanises people and fails to meet international legal obligations. Successive UK governments have ignored the UN’s pleas to take urgent action to fix this. 

    Poverty is a visible sign of a failing social security system. When the UK government knowingly makes choices to make poverty worse, it is deliberately violating basic human rights. We have moved from a society that supports people to a punitive system that drives poverty by policy. 

    The rate of poverty in the UK is now higher than at any point in the 21st century. Sixteen million people in the UK are living in families in poverty – almost a quarter of the UK*. Of these, 5.2 million are children, 9.2 million are working-age adults, and 1.5 million are pension-age adults. While poverty rates in Scotland are now marginally lower than in the rest of the UK, 20% of people in Scotland are living in the grip of poverty including almost one in four children. 

    For its report ’Social Insecurity’ Amnesty’s collaborated with over 700 benefit claimants – including 74 claimant interviews in Scotland – and advisors to provide a platform for the people most gravely affected and show how politicians are playing with people’s lives and ignoring our most basic rights. In 2024 86% of low-income families on Universal Credit went without essentials such as heating, food and clothing. 

    With the backdrop of the Spring Statement and devastating disability social security cuts, Amnesty’s report delivers a crushing blow of evidence on the UK’s social security system and political choices that have pushed people into poverty and centres real-life experiences throughout, demonstrating the depth of dehumanisation. 

    Recommendations from the report call for: 

    • System overhaul: A landmark, independent Social Security Commission with statutory powers to overhaul the UK’s broken social security system—rooted in dignity and human rights. 

    •  Urgent protection from harm: The UK Government to urgently reverse harmful social security cuts, sanctions and caps including the two-child limit and ensure upcoming reforms of PIP, ESA and Universal Credit, meet international human rights standards and are shaped by those most affected. 

    •  Legal protections: The UK Government to put in place legal frameworks protecting economic, social and cultural rights to ensure everyone’s basic human rights to food, housing, and dignity are protected in law and prevent failures in social security policy from causing wider harms. 
       


    MIL OSI NGO

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Text adopted – Ninth report on economic and social cohesion – P10_TA(2025)0098 – Thursday, 8 May 2025 – Strasbourg

    Source: European Parliament

    The European Parliament,

    –  having regard to Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty on European Union,

    –  having regard to Articles 4, 162, 174 to 178, and 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy(1) (Common Provisions Regulation),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund(2),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1059 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on specific provisions for the European territorial cooperation goal (Interreg) supported by the European Regional Development Fund and external financing instruments(3),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013(4),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund(5),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013(6),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/460 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 March 2020 amending Regulations (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 508/2014 as regards specific measures to mobilise investments in the healthcare systems of Member States and in other sectors of their economies in response to the COVID-19 outbreak (Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative)(7),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/558 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2020 amending Regulations (EU) No 1301/2013 and (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards specific measures to provide exceptional flexibility for the use of the European Structural and Investments Funds in response to the COVID-19 outbreak(8),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/461 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 March 2020 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 in order to provide financial assistance to Member States and to countries negotiating their accession to the Union that are seriously affected by a major public health emergency(9),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/2221 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 December 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards additional resources and implementing arrangements to provide assistance for fostering crisis repair in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and its social consequences and for preparing a green, digital and resilient recovery of the economy (REACT-EU)(10),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022/562 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 April 2022 amending Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 223/2014 as regards Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe (CARE)(11),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022/2039 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 amending Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) 2021/1060 as regards additional flexibility to address the consequences of the military aggression of the Russian Federation FAST (Flexible Assistance for Territories) – CARE(12),

    –  having regard to the URBACT programme for sustainable urban cooperation, established in 2002,

    –  having regard to the Urban Agenda for the EU of 30 May 2016,

    –  having regard to the Territorial Agenda 2030 of 1 December 2020,

    –  having regard to the 9th Cohesion Report, published by the Commission on 27 March 2024(13), and the Commission communication of 27 March 2024 on the 9th Cohesion Report (COM(2024)0149),

    –  having regard to the study entitled ‘The future of EU cohesion: Scenarios and their impacts on regional inequalities’, published by the European Parliamentary Research Service in December 2024,

    –  having regard to the Commission report of February 2024 entitled ‘Forging a sustainable future together – Cohesion for a competitive and inclusive Europe’(14),

    –  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 31 May 2024 on the 9th Cohesion Report(15),

    –  having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 21 November 2024 entitled ‘A renewed Cohesion Policy post 2027 that leaves no one behind – CoR responses to the 9th Cohesion Report and the Report of the Group of High-Level Specialists on the Future of Cohesion Policy’,

    –  having regard to the report entitled ‘The future of European competitiveness – A competitiveness strategy for Europe’, published by the Commission on 9 September 2024,

    –  having regard to the agreement adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21) in Paris on 12 December 2015 (the Paris Agreement),

    –  having regard to the study entitled ‘Streamlining EU Cohesion Funds: addressing administrative burdens and redundancy’, published by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union in November 2024(16),

    –  having regard to a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2025 on the Border Regions’ Instrument for Development and Growth in the EU (BRIDGEforEU)(17),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 3 May 2022 entitled ‘Putting people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions’ (COM(2022)0198),

    –  having regard to the opinion in the form of a letter from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development(18),

    –  having regard to its resolution of 25 March 2021 on cohesion policy and regional environment strategies in the fight against climate change(19),

    –  having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2021 on reversing demographic trends in EU regions using cohesion policy instruments(20),

    –  having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2021 entitled ‘Towards a stronger partnership with the EU outermost regions(21),

    –  having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2022 on economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU: the 8th Cohesion Report(22),

    –  having regard to its resolution of 21 November 2023 on possibilities to increase the reliability of audits and controls by national authorities in shared management(23),

    –  having regard to its resolution of 23 November 2023 on harnessing talent in Europe’s regions(24),

    –  having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2024 entitled ‘Cohesion policy 2014-2020 – implementation and outcomes in the Member States(25),

    –  having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

    –  having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A10-0066/2025),

    A.  whereas cohesion policy is at the heart of EU policies and is the EU’s main tool for investments in sustainable economic, social and territorial development, and contributing to the Green Deal objectives, across the EU under its multiannual financial frameworks for the periods of 2014-2020 and 2021-2027; whereas cohesion policy, as mandated by the Treaties, is fundamental for a well-functioning and thriving internal market by promoting the development of all regions in the EU, and especially the less developed ones;

    B.  whereas cohesion policy has fostered economic, social and territorial convergence in the EU, notably by increasing the gross domestic products, for example, of central and eastern EU Member States, which went from 43 % of the EU average in 1995 to around 80 % in 2023; whereas the 9th Cohesion Report highlights that, by the end of 2022, cohesion policy supported over 4,4 million businesses, creating more than 370 000 jobs in these companies; whereas it also underlines that cohesion policy generates a significant return on investment, and that each euro invested in the 2014–2020 and 2021–2027 programmes will have generated 1,3 euros of additional GDP in the Union by 2030; whereas cohesion policy constituted, on average, around 13 % of total public investment in the EU(26);

    C.  whereas the Commission report entitled ‘The long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas: key achievements and ways forward’, presented alongside the ninth Cohesion Report, underlines that EUR 24,6 billion, or 8 % of the rural development pillar of the common agricultural policy, is directed towards investments in rural areas beyond farming investments, setting the scene for a debate on the future of rural areas;

    D.  whereas between 2021 and 2027, cohesion policy will have invested over EUR 140 billion in the green and digital transitions(27), to help improve networks and infrastructure, support nature conservation, improve green and digital skills and foster job creation and services for the public;

    E.  whereas despite the widely acknowledged and proven positive impact of cohesion policy on social, economic and territorial convergence, significant challenges remain, marked notably by development disparities at sub-national level, within regions and in regions caught in a development trap, and by the impact of climate change, in terms of demography, the digital and green transitions, and connectivity, but also in terms of sustainable economic development, in particular in least developed regions and rural and remote areas;

    F.  whereas cohesion policy and sectoral programmes of the EU have repeatedly and efficiently helped regions to respond effectively to emergencies and asymmetric shocks such as the COVID-19 crisis, Brexit, the energy crisis and the refugee crisis caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as natural disasters, even though it is a long-term, structural policy and not a crisis management instrument or the ‘go-to’ emergency response funding mechanism; whereas such crises have delayed the implementation of the European Structural and Investment Funds and whereas a considerable number of projects financed with Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) funds have been taken for the most part from projects that had been slated for investment under cohesion policy;

    G.  whereas despite measures already taken for the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 periods, the regulatory framework governing the use and administration of cohesion policy instruments and funds should be further simplified and interoperable digital tools better used and developed, including the establishment of one-stop digitalised service centres, with the objective of streamlining procedures, enhancing stakeholder trust, reducing the administrative burden, increasing flexibility in fund management and speeding up payments, not only for the relevant authorities but also for the final beneficiaries; whereas it is necessary to increase the scope for using funds more flexibly, including the possibility of financing the development of dual-use products; whereas it is of utmost importance to formulate any future cohesion policy with a strategic impetus throughout the funding period, which could, however, be reassessed at midterm;

    H.  whereas the low absorption rate of the 2021-2027 cohesion policy funds, currently at just 6 %, is not because of a lack of need from Member States or regions, but rather stems from delays in the approval of operational programmes, the transition period between financial frameworks, the prioritisation of NextGenerationEU by national managing authorities, limited administrative capacity and complex bureaucratic procedures; whereas Member States and regions may not rush to absorb all available funds as they anticipate a possible extension under the N+2 or N+3 rules;

    I.  whereas radical modifications to the cohesion regulatory framework, from one programming period to the next, contribute to generating insecurity among the authorities responsible and beneficiaries, gold-plating legislation, increasing error rates (and the accompanying negative reputational and financial consequences), delays in implementation and, ultimately, disaffection among beneficiaries and the general population;

    J.  whereas there is sometimes competition between cohesion funds, emergency funds and sectoral policies;

    K.  whereas demographic changes vary significantly across EU regions, with the populations of some Member States facing a projected decline in the coming years and others projected to grow; whereas demographic changes also take place between regions, including movement away from outermost regions, but are generally observed as movement from rural to urban areas within Member States, wherein women are leaving rural areas in greater numbers than men, but also to metropolitan areas, where villages around big cities encounter difficulties in investing in basic infrastructure; whereas the provision of essential services such as healthcare, education and transportation must be reinforced in all regions, with a particular focus on rural and remote areas; whereas a stronger focus is needed on areas suffering from depopulation and inadequate services, requiring targeted measures to encourage young people to remain through entrepreneurship projects, high-quality agriculture and sustainable tourism;

    L.  whereas taking account of the ageing population is crucial in order to ensure justice among the generations and thereby to strengthen participation, especially among young people;

    M.  whereas urban areas are burdened by new challenges resulting from the population influx to cities, as well as rising housing and energy prices, requiring the necessary housing development, new environmental protection and energy-saving measures, such as accelerated deep renovation to combat energy poverty and promote energy efficiency; whereas the EU cohesion policy should help to contribute to an affordable and accessible housing market for all people in the EU, especially for low- and middle-income households, urban residents, families with children, women and young people;

    N.  whereas effective implementation of the Urban Agenda for the EU can enhance the capacity of cities to contribute to cohesion objectives, thereby improving the quality of life of citizens and guaranteeing a more efficient use of the EU’s financial resources;

    O.  whereas particular attention needs to be paid to rural areas, as well as areas affected by industrial transition and EU regions that suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, brain drain, climate-related risks and water scarcity, such as the outermost regions, and in particular islands located at their peripheries or at the periphery of the EU, sparsely populated regions, islands, mountainous areas and cross-border regions, as well as coastal and maritime regions;

    P.  whereas Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has created a new geopolitical reality that has had a strong impact on the employment, economic development and opportunities, and general well-being of the population living in regions bordering Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, as well as candidate countries such as Ukraine and Moldova, which therefore require special attention and support, including by accordingly adapting cohesion policy; whereas this war has led to an unprecedented number of people seeking shelter in the EU, placing an additional burden on local communities and services; whereas the collective security of the EU is strongly dependent on the vitality and well-being of regions situated at the EU’s external borders;

    Q.  whereas the unique situation of Northern Ireland requires a bespoke approach building on the benefits of PEACE programmes examining how wider cohesion policy can benefit the process of reconciliation;

    R.  whereas 79 % of citizens who are aware of EU-funded projects under cohesion policy believe that EU-funded projects have a positive impact on the regions(28), which contributes to a pro-EU attitude;

    S.  whereas overall awareness of EU-funded projects under cohesion policy has decreased by 2 percentage points since 2021(29), meaning that greater decentralisation should be pursued to bring cohesion policy even closer to the citizen;

    1.  Insists that the regional and local focus, place-based approach and strategic planning of cohesion policy, as well as its decentralised programming and implementation model based on the partnership principle with strengthened implementation of the European code of conduct, the involvement of economic and civil society actors, and multi-level governance, are key and positive elements of the policy, and determine its effectiveness; is firmly convinced that this model of cohesion policy should be continued in all regions and deepened where possible as the EU’s main long-term investment instrument for reducing disparities, ensuring economic, social and territorial cohesion, and stimulating regional and local sustainable growth in line with EU strategies, protecting the environment, and as a key contributor to EU competitiveness and just transition, as well as helping to cope with new challenges ahead;

    2.  Calls for a clear demarcation between cohesion policy and other instruments, in order to avoid overlaps and competition between EU instruments, ensure complementarity of the various interventions and increase visibility and readability of EU support; in this context, notes that the RRF funds are committed to economic development and growth, without specifically focusing on economic, social and territorial cohesion between regions; is concerned about the Commission’s plans to apply a performance-based approach to the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF); acknowledges that performance-based mechanisms can be instrumental in making the policy more efficient and results-orientated, but cautions against a one-size-fits-all imposition of the model and expresses serious doubt about ideas to link the disbursement of ESIF to the fulfilment of centrally defined reform goals, even more so if the reform goals do not fall within the scope of competence of the regional level;

    3.  Is opposed to any form of top-down centralisation reform of EU funding programmes, including those under shared management, such as the cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy, and advocates for greater decentralisation of decision-making to the local and regional levels; calls for enhanced involvement of local and regional authorities and economic and civil society actors at every stage of EU shared management programmes, from preparation and programming to implementation, delivery and evaluation, keeping in mind that the economic and social development of, and territorial cohesion between, regions can only be accomplished on the basis of good cooperation between all actors;

    4.  Emphasises that the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) plays a key role, alongside cohesion policy funds, in supporting rural areas; stresses that the EAFRD’s design must align with the rules of cohesion policy funds to boost synergies and facilitate multi-funded rural development projects;

    5.  Is convinced that cohesion policy can only continue to play its role if it has solid funding; underlines that this implies that future cohesion policy must be provided with robust funding for the post-2027 financial period; stresses that it is necessary to provide funding that is ambitious enough and easily accessible to allow cohesion policy to continue to fulfil its role as the EU’s main investment policy, while retaining the flexibility to meet potential new challenges, including the possibility of financing the development of dual-use products, and to enable local authorities, stakeholders and beneficiaries to effectively foster local development; is of the firm opinion that the capacity to offer flexible responses to unpredictable challenges should not come at the expense of the clear long-term strategic focus and objectives of cohesion policy;

    6.  Underlines the importance of the next EU multiannual financial framework (MFF) and the mid-term review of cohesion policy programmes 2021-2027 in shaping the future of cohesion policy; reiterates the need for a more ambitious post-2027 cohesion policy in the next MFF 2028-2034; calls, therefore, for the upcoming MFF to ensure that cohesion policy continues to receive at least the same level of funding as in the current period in real terms; furthermore calls for cohesion policy to remain a separate heading in the new MFF; stresses that cohesion policy should be protected from statistical effects that may alter the eligibility of regions by changing the average EU GDP; reiterates the need for new EU own resources;

    7.  Proposes, therefore, that next MFF be more responsive to unforeseen needs, including with sufficient margins and flexibilities from the outset; emphasises in this regard, however, that cohesion policy is not a crisis instrument and that it should not deviate from its main objectives, namely from its long-term investment nature; calls for the European Union Solidarity Fund to be strengthened, including in its pre-financing, making it less bureaucratic and more easily accessible, in order to develop an appropriate instrument capable of responding adequately to the economic, social and territorial consequences of future natural disasters or health emergencies; emphasises the need for Parliament to have adequate control over any emergency funds and instruments;

    8.  Recognises the need to also use nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) 3 classification for specific cases, in a manner that recognises that inequalities in development exist within all NUTS 2 regions; is of the opinion that regional GDP per capita must remain the main criterion for determining Member States’ allocations under cohesion policy; welcomes the fact that, following Parliament’s persistent calls, the Commission has begun considering additional criteria(30) such as greenhouse gas emissions, population density, education levels and unemployment rates, in order to provide a better socio-economic overview of the regions;

    9.  Stresses that the rule of law conditionality is an overarching conditionality, recognising and enforcing respect for the rule of law, also as an enabling condition for cohesion policy funding, to ensure that Union resources are used in a transparent, fair and responsible manner with sound financial management; considers it necessary to reinforce respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights, and to ensure that all actions are consistent with supporting democratic principles, gender equality and human rights, including workers’ rights, the rights of disabled people and children’s rights, in the implementation of cohesion policy; highlights the important role of the European Anti-Fraud Office and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in protecting the financial interests of the Union;

    10.  Calls for further efforts to simplify, make more flexible, strengthen synergies and streamline the rules and administrative procedures governing cohesion policy funds at EU, national and regional level, taking full advantage of the technologies available to increase accessibility and efficiency, building on the existing and well-established shared management framework, in order to strengthen confidence among users, thus encouraging the participation of a broader range of economic and civil society actors in projects supported and maximising the funds’ impact; calls for further initiatives enabling better absorption of cohesion funds, including increased co-financing levels, higher pre-financing and faster investment reimbursements; calls for local administration, in particular representing smaller communities, to be technically trained for better administrative management of the funds; stresses, therefore, the importance of strengthening the single audit principle, further expanding simplified cost options and reducing duplicating controls and audits that overlap with national and regional oversight for the same project and beneficiary, with a view to eliminating the possibility of repeating errors in subsequent years of implementation;

    11.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to give regions greater flexibility already at the programming stage, in order to cater for their particular needs and specificities, emphasising the need to involve the economic and civil society actors; underlines that thematic concentration was a key element in aligning cohesion policy with Europe 2020 objectives; asks the Commission, therefore, to present all findings related to the implementation of thematic concentration and to draw lessons for future legislative proposals;

    12.  Acknowledges that the green, digital and demographic transitions present significant challenges but, at the same time, opportunities to achieve the objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion; recognises that, statistically, high-income areas can hide the economic problems within a region; is aware of the risk of a widening of regional disparities, a deepening of social inequalities and a rising ‘geography of discontent’ related to the transition process; underlines the need to reach the EU’s sustainability and climate objectives, and to maintain shared economic growth by strengthening the Union’s competitiveness; calls, therefore, for a European strategy that guarantees harmonious growth within the Union, meeting the respective regions’ specific needs; reaffirms its commitment to pursuing the green and digital transitions, as this will create opportunities to improve the EU’s competitiveness; underlines the need to invest in infrastructure projects that enhance connectivity, particularly in sustainable, intelligent transport, and in energy and digital networks, ensuring that all regions, including remote and less-developed ones, are fully integrated into the single market and benefit equitably from the opportunities it provides; emphasises, in this context, the need to support the development of green industries, fostering local specificities and traditions to increase the resilience of the economic environment and civil society to future challenges;

    13.  Urges that the cohesion policy remain consistent with a push towards increasing innovation and completing the EU single market, in line with the conclusions of the Draghi report on European competitiveness; underlines, in the context of regional disparities, the problem of the persisting innovation divide and advocates for a tailored, place-based approach to fostering innovation and economic convergence across regions and reducing the innovation gap; calls for a stronger role for local and regional innovation in building competitive research and innovation ecosystems and promoting territorial cohesion; points to new EU initiatives, such as regional innovation valleys and partnerships for regional innovation, that aim to connect territories with different levels of innovation performance and tackle the innovation gap; considers that this approach will reinforce regional autonomy, allowing local and regional authorities to shape EU policies and objectives in line with their specific needs, characteristics and capacities, while safeguarding the partnership principle;

    14.  Is convinced that cohesion policy needs to continue to foster the principle of just transition, addressing the specific needs of regions, while leaving no territory and no one behind; calls for continued financing of the just transition process, with the Just Transition Fund being fully integrated into the Common Provisions Regulation and endowed with reinforced financial means for the post-2027 programming period; emphasises, nonetheless, the need to assess the impact of the Just Transition Fund on the transformation of eligible regions and, while ensuring it remains part of cohesion policy, refine its approach in the new MFF on the basis of the findings and concrete measures to ensure the economic and social well-being of affected communities;

    15.  Underlines the need to improve the relationship between cohesion policy and EU economic governance, while avoiding a punitive approach; stresses that the European Semester should comply with cohesion policy objectives under Articles 174 and 175 TFEU; calls for the participation of the regions in the fulfilment of these objectives and for a stronger territorial approach; calls for a process of reflection on the concept of macroeconomic conditionality and for the possibility to be explored of replacing this concept with new forms of conditionality to better reflect the new challenges ahead;

    16.  Is concerned about the growing number of regions in a development trap, which are stagnating economically and are suffering from sharp demographic decline and limited access to essential services; calls, therefore, for an upward adjustment in co-financing for projects aimed at strengthening essential services; stresses the role of cohesion policy instruments in supporting different regions and local areas that are coping with demographic evolution affecting people’s effective right to stay, including, among others, challenges related to depopulation, ageing, gender imbalances, brain drain, skills shortages and workforce imbalances across regions; recognises the need for targeted economic incentives and structural interventions to counteract these phenomena; in this context, calls for the implementation of targeted programmes to attract, develop and retain talent, particularly in regions experiencing significant outflows of skilled workers, by fostering education, culture, entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystems that align with local and regional economic needs and opportunities;

    17.  Recognises the importance of supporting and financing specific solutions for regions with long-standing and serious economic difficulties or severe permanent natural and demographic handicaps; reiterates the need for maintaining and improving the provision of quality essential services (such as education and healthcare), transport and digital connectivity of these regions, fostering their economic diversification and job creation, and helping them respond to challenges such as rural desertification, population ageing, poverty, depopulation, loneliness and isolation, as well as the lack of opportunities for vulnerable people such as persons with disabilities; underlines the need to prioritise the development and adequate funding of strategic sectors, such as renewable energy, sustainable tourism, digital innovation and infrastructure, in a manner that is tailored to the economic potential and resources of each region, in order to create broader conditions for endogenous growth and balanced development across all regions, especially rural, remote and less-developed areas, border regions, islands and outermost regions; recalls the importance of strong rural-urban linkages and particular support for women in rural areas;

    18.  Emphasises the need for a tailored approach for the outermost regions, as defined under Article 349 TFEU, which face unique and cumulative structural challenges due to their remoteness, small market size, vulnerability to climate change and economic dependencies; underlines that these permanent constraints, including the small size of the domestic economy, great distance from the European continent, location near third countries, double insularity for most of them, and limited diversification of the productive sector, result in additional costs and reduced competitiveness, making their adaptation to the green and digital transition particularly complex and costly; underlines their great potential to further develop, inter alia through improved regional connectivity, key sectors such as blue economy, sustainable agriculture, renewable energies, space activities, research or eco-tourism; reiterates its long-standing call on the Commission to duly consider the impact of all newly proposed legislation on the outermost regions, with a view to avoiding disproportionate regulatory burdens and adverse effects on these regions’ economies;

    19.  Underlines the fact that towns, cities and metropolitan areas have challenges of their own, such as considerable pockets of poverty, housing problems, traffic congestion and poor air quality, generating challenges for social and economic cohesion created by inharmonious territorial development; emphasises the need for a specific agenda for cities and calls for deepening their links with functional urban areas, encompassing smaller cities and towns, to ensure that economic and social benefits are spread more evenly across the entire territory; highlights the need to strengthen coordination between the initiatives of the Urban Agenda for the EU and the instruments of cohesion policy, favouring an integrated approach that takes into account territorial specificities and emerging challenges; calls, furthermore, for more direct access to EU funding for regional and local authorities, as well as cities and urban authorities, by inter alia widening the use of integrated territorial investments (ITI);

    20.  Stresses the need to continue and strengthen investments in affordable housing within the cohesion policy framework, recognising its significance for both regions and cities; highlights the need to foster its changes relevant to investing in housing beyond the two current possibilities (energy efficiency and social housing); emphasises the important role that cohesion policy plays in the roll-out and coordination of these initiatives; believes, furthermore, that it is important to include housing affordability in the URBACT initiative;

    21.  Stresses the strategic importance of strong external border regions for the security and resilience of the EU; calls on the Commission to support the Member States and regions affected by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, in particular the regions on the EU’s eastern border, by revising the Guidelines on regional State aid(31), through tailor-made tools and investments under the cohesion policy, as well as supporting them to make the most of the possibilities offered by the cohesion policy funds, including Interreg, in a flexible way, to help cope with the detrimental socio-economic impact of the war on their populations and territories; calls, furthermore, for support to be given to regions bordering candidate countries such as Ukraine and Moldova to strengthen connections and promote their EU integration;

    22.  Highlights the added value of territorial cooperation in general and cross-border cooperation in particular; underlines the importance of Interreg for cross-border regions, including outermost regions; emphasises its important role in contributing to their development and overcoming cross-border obstacles, including building trust across borders, developing transport links, identifying and reducing legal and administrative obstacles and increasing the provision and use of cross-border public services, among others; considers Interreg as the main EU instrument for tackling the persistent cross-border obstacles faced by emergency services, and proposes that there be a more prominent focus on these services; underlines the fact that cross-border areas, including areas at the EU’s external borders, bordering aggressor countries often face specific challenges; believes that EU border regions, facing multiple challenges, must be supported and is of the opinion that they must be provided with increased means; welcomes the new regulation on BRIDGEforEU; emphasises the importance of small-scale and cross-border projects and stresses the need for effective implementation on the ground; calls on the Commission to encourage Member States to actively support awareness-raising campaigns in bordering regions to maximise the impact of cross-border cooperation;

    23.  Recalls the need to ‘support cohesion’, rather than just rely on the ‘do no harm to cohesion’ principle, which means that no action should hamper the convergence process or contribute to regional disparities; calls for a stronger integration of these principles as cross-cutting in all EU policies, to ensure that they support the objectives of social, economic and territorial cohesion, as set out in Articles 3 and 174 TFEU; calls, furthermore, on the Commission to issue specific guidelines on how to implement and enforce these principles across EU policies, paying particular attention to the impact of EU laws on the competitiveness of less developed regions; reiterates that new legislative proposals need to take due account of local and regional realities; suggests that the Commission draw on innovative tools such as RegHUB (the network of regional hubs) to collect data on the impact of EU policies on the regions; to this end, underlines the need to strengthen the territorial impact assessment of EU legislation, with a simultaneous strengthening of the territorial aspects of other relevant policies; insists that promoting cohesion should also be seen as a way of fostering solidarity and mutual support among Member States and their regions; calls on the Commission and the Member States to continue their efforts regarding communication and visibility of the benefits of cohesion policy, demonstrating to citizens the EU’s tangible impact and serving as a key tool in addressing Euroscepticism; welcomes the launch of the multilingual version of the Kohesio platform;

    24.  Notes with concern the severe decline in recent years of adequate levels of national funding by Member States towards their poorer regions; recalls the importance of respecting the EU rule on additionality; calls on the Commission to ensure that national authorities take due account of internal cohesion in drafting and implementing structural and investment fund projects;

    25.  Insists that, in addition to adjusting to regional needs, cohesion policy must be adapted to the smallest scale, i.e. funds must be accessible to the smallest projects and project bearers; points out that their initiatives are often the most innovative and have a significant impact on rural development; reiterates that these funds should be accessible to all, regardless of their size or scope; approves of the Cohesion Alliance’s call for ‘a post-2027 Cohesion Policy that leaves no one behind’;

    26.  Stresses that delays in the MFF negotiations, together with the fact that Member States have placed a greater focus on the programming of the RRF funds, led to considerable delays in the programming period 2021-2027; stresses the importance of a timely agreement in the next framework, and therefore calls for the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) and the budget negotiations to be finalised at least one year before the start of the new funding period so that Member States can develop their national and regional funding strategies in good time to ensure a successful transition to the next funding period and the continuation of existing ESIF projects;

    27.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European Economic and Social Committee, the European Committee of the Regions and the national and regional parliaments of the Member States.

    (1) OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1060/oj.
    (2) OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 60, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1058/oj.
    (3) OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 94, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1059/oj.
    (4) OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1057/oj.
    (5) OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1056/oj.
    (6) OJ L 435, 6.12.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj.
    (7) OJ L 99, 31.3.2020, p. 5, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/460/oj.
    (8) OJ L 130, 24.4.2020, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/558/oj.
    (9) OJ L 99, 31.3.2020, p. 9, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/461/oj.
    (10) OJ L 437, 28.12.2020, p. 30, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/2221/oj.
    (11) OJ L 109, 8.4.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/562/oj.
    (12) OJ L 275, 25.10.2022, p. 23, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2039/oj.
    (13) European Commission: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, Ninth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, 2024.
    (14) European Commission: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, Forging a sustainable future together: Cohesion for a competitive and inclusive Europe – Report of the High-Level Group on the Future of Cohesion Policy, February 2024.
    (15) OJ C, C/2024/4668, 9.8.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4668/oj.
    (16) European Parliament: Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Streamlining EU Cohesion funds – addressing administrative burdens and redundancy, 2024.
    (17) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
    (18) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
    (19) OJ C 494, 8.12.2021, p. 26.
    (20) OJ C 15, 12.1.2022, p. 125.
    (21) OJ C 117, 11.3.2022, p. 18.
    (22) OJ C 125, 5.4.2023, p. 100.
    (23) OJ C, C/2024/4207, 24.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4207/oj.
    (24) OJ C, C/2024/4225, 24.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4225/oj.
    (25) OJ C, C/2024/6562, 12.11.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6562/oj.
    (26) European Commission, Ninth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, op.cit.
    (27) European Commission: Ninth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, op. cit.
    (28) European Commission: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy and Directorate-General for Communication, Citizens’ awareness and perceptions of EU Regional Policy, Flash Eurobarometer 531, 2023.
    (29) Flash Eurobarometer 531, op. cit.
    (30) European Court of Auditors, Rapid case review – Allocation of Cohesion policy funding to Member States for 2021-2027, March 2019.
    (31) Commission communication of 29 April 2021 entitled ‘Guidelines on regional State aid’ (OJ C 153, 29.4.2021, p. 1).

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Text adopted – The European Water Resilience Strategy – P10_TA(2025)0091 – Wednesday, 7 May 2025 – Strasbourg

    Source: European Parliament

    The European Parliament,

    –  having regard to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Article 191 thereof,

    –  having regard to the Agreement adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP21) in Paris on 12 December 2015 (the Paris Agreement),

    –  having regard to the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with particular emphasis on the SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation,

    –  having regard to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in December 2022,

    –  having regard to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants of 22 May 2001,

    –  having regard to the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should, as a priority, be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay, as enshrined in Article 191(2) TFEU,

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (European Climate Law)(1),

    –  having regard to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy(2) (Water Framework Directive),

    –  having regard to Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration(3) (Groundwater Directive),

    –  having regard to Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(4) (Environmental Quality Standards Directive),

    –  having regard to Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks(5),

    –  having regard to Directive (EU) 2020/2184 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the quality of water intended for human consumption(6) (Drinking Water Directive),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/741 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 on minimum requirements for water reuse(7) (Water Reuse Regulation),

    –  having regard to Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)(8),

    –  having regard to Directive (EU) 2024/3019 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 concerning urban wastewater treatment(9) (revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive),

    –  having regard to Directive (EU) 2024/1785 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 amending Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) and Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste(10),

    –  having regard to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources(11),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869(12),

    –  having regard to Directive (EU) 2022/2557 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on the resilience of critical entities and repealing Council Directive 2008/114/EC(13) (Critical Entities Resilience Directive),

    –  having regard to Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of the European Parliament and of the Council on 14 December 2022 on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union, amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 and Directive (EU) 2018/1972, and repealing Directive (EU) 2016/1148 (NIS 2 Directive)(14),

    –  having regard to Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides(15),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013(16),

    –  having regard to Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/3190 of 19 December 2024 on the use of bisphenol A (BPA) and other bisphenols and bisphenol derivatives with harmonised classification for specific hazardous properties in certain materials and articles intended to come into contact with food, amending Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/213(17),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 19 February 2021 entitled ‘A Vision for Agriculture and Food’ (COM(2025)0075),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 11 December 2019 on the European Green Deal (COM(2019)0640),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 29 January 2025 entitled ‘A Competitiveness Compass for the EU’ (COM(2025)0030),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 12 May 2021 entitled ‘Pathway to a Healthy Planet for All – EU Action Plan: ‘Towards Zero Pollution for Air, Water and Soil’’ (COM(2021)0400),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 24 February 2021 entitled ‘Forging a climate-resilient Europe – the new EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change’ (COM(2021)0082),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 18 July 2007 on addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the European Union (COM(2007)0414),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 11 March 2020 entitled ‘A new Circular Economy Action Plan: For a cleaner and more competitive Europe’ (COM(2020)0098),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 14 November 2012 entitled ‘A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources’ (COM(2012)0673),

    –  having regard to the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030,

    –  having regard to the COP29 Declaration on Water for Climate Action, endorsed by the European Union,

    –  having regard to the European Oceans Pact announced by Commission President von der Leyen in her political guidelines for the next European Commission (2024-2029) on 18 July 2024,

    –  having regard to the European climate adaptation plan and the European water resilience strategy announced by Commission President von der Leyen in her political guidelines for the next European Commission (2024-2029) on 18 July 2024,

    –  having regard to the EU’s 8th environment action programme,

    –  having regards to its resolution of 5 October 2022 entitled ‘Access to water as a human right – the external dimension’(18),

    –  having regard to its resolution of 19 September 2024 on the devastating floods in central and eastern Europe, the loss of lives and the EU’s preparedness to act on such disasters exacerbated by climate change(19),

    –  having regard to its resolution of 6 October 2022 on momentum for the ocean: strengthening ocean governance and biodiversity(20),

    –  having regard to its resolution of 28 November 2019 on the climate and environment emergency(21),

    –  having regard to its resolution of 14 November 2024 on the UN climate change conference in Baku, Azerbaijan (COP29)(22),

    –  having regard to the Commission report of 4 February 2025 on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) entitled ‘Third river basin management plans – Second flood risk management plans’ (COM(2025)0002),

    –  having regard to the European Court of Auditors special report 15/2024 of 16 October 2024 entitled ‘Climate adaptation in the EU – action not keeping up with ambition’,

    –  having regard to former Finnish President Sauli Niinistö’s report of 30 October 2024 entitled ‘Safer Together – Strengthening Europe’s civil and military preparedness and readiness’,

    –  having regard to Enrico Letta’s report of April 2024 entitled ‘Much more than a market’,

    –  having regard to its resolution of 17 December 2020 on the implementation of the EU water legislation(23),

    –  having regard to the European Court of Auditors special report 33/2018 of 18 December 2018 entitled ‘Combating desertification in the EU: a growing threat in need of more action,

    –  having regard to the European citizens’ initiative (ECI) on the right to water,

    –  having regard to its resolution of 8 September 2015 on the follow-up to the European Citizens’ Initiative Right2Water(24),

    –  having regard to UN General Assembly Resolution 64/292 of 28 July 2010, which recognises the human right to water and sanitation,

    –  having regard to the Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU agriculture,

    –  having regard to the European Court of Auditors special report 20/2024 of 30 September 2024 entitled ‘Common Agricultural Policy Plans – Greener, but not matching the EU’s ambitions for the climate and the environment’,

    –  having regard to European Environment Agency report 07/2024 of 15 October 2024 entitled ‘Europe’s state of water 2024: the need for improved water resilience’ (EEA Report 07/2024),

    –  having regard to the Environment Council conclusions of 17 June 2024 on the 8th environment action programme,

    –  having regard to European Court of Auditors special report 20/2021 of 28 September 2021 entitled ‘Sustainable water use in agriculture: CAP funds more likely to promote greater rather than more efficient water use’,

    –  having regard to the European Economic and Social Committee declaration of 26 October 2023 for an EU Blue Deal,

    –  having regard to the Commission proposal of 5 July 2023 for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law) (COM(2023)0416),

    –  having regard to its position at first reading of 24 April 2024 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, Directive 2006/118/EC on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration and Directive 2008/105/EC on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy(25),

    –  having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

    –  having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,

    –  having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety (A10-0073/2025),

    A.  whereas water is essential for life and humanity; whereas the EU has to manage current and future water resources efficiently and respond effectively to the current water challenges, as they directly affect human health, the environment and its ecosystems, strategic socio-economic activities such as energy production, agriculture and food security, and the EU’s competitiveness;

    B.  whereas water is a scarce and limited resource and, while 70 % of the earth’s surface is water-covered, available and usable fresh water accounts for only 0,5 % of water on earth(26); whereas mountains are real water towers and important freshwater reservoirs in Europe, the Alps alone providing 40 % of Europe’s fresh water(27);

    C.  whereas groundwater supplies two thirds of the EU’s drinking water and supports many ecosystems(28); whereas the services provided by freshwater ecosystems are worth over EUR 11 trillion in Europe, and provide considerable health and recreational benefits, such as from angling(29);

    D.  whereas water stress is already occurring in Europe, affecting approximately 20 % of Europe’s territory and 30 % of the population on average every year, figures that are likely to increase in the future on account of climate change(30), despite the fact that total water abstraction at the EU-27 level appeared to decrease by 15 % between 2000 and 2019; whereas the increase in the number and recurrence of extreme weather events such as droughts and floods, and the fact that they are expected to become yet more frequent in the near future, poses a risk to human life and the EU’s food sovereignty and could lead to regions in Europe becoming uninhabitable;

    E.  whereas 78 % of Europeans consider that the EU should propose additional measures to address water-related issues in Europe and 21 % of Europeans consider pollution to be the main threat linked to water in their country(31);

    F.  whereas the human right to water and sanitation was recognised as a human right in a resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on 28 July 2010;

    G.  whereas the European Citizens’ Initiative Right2Water was the first ever to gather the required number of signatories, calling for the EU to ensure the right to water for all;

    H.  whereas the provisions of Article 14 TFEU and Protocol No 26 thereto on Services of General Interest are key elements to be prominently taken into account in all aspects of the design and implementation of the European water resilience strategy (EWRS), thus safeguarding the status of Europe’s water services as essential public services, and ensuring accessibility, equity, affordability and the maintenance of high quality standards;

    I.  whereas the Member States should follow up on the recommendations of the Commission report of November 2023(32) in order to improve water balances as the knowledge basis for making decisions about water allocation;

    J.  whereas substantive corporate value may be at risk owing to worsening water insecurity, with a decrease in the capacity of production or its complete halt as a consequence; whereas assets in water-stressed regions could become stranded, temporarily or permanently, if assumptions made about water availability and access prove inaccurate, if regulatory responses are unanticipated or if risk mitigation and stewardship plans are not put in place(33);

    K.  whereas the deadline set by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) for European rivers, lakes, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwaters to achieve ‘good’ status was 2015, with a possible postponement to 2027 under certain conditions; whereas the objective of achieving good chemical status for all EU water bodies by 2027 remains far from being achieved, primarily due to substances such as mercury, brominated flame retardants and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(34);

    L.  whereas the 2025 report on the implementation of the WFD shows that delays in meeting the WFD’s targets are not due to a deficiency in the legislation but to a lack of funding, slow implementation and insufficient integration of environmental objectives into sectoral policies; whereas analysis has shown that the Member States are not meeting the annual investment needs, which are estimated to be EUR 77 billion, with a financing gap currently estimated at around EUR 25 billion a year; whereas the report also shows the clear need for the Member States to increase their level of ambition and accelerate action to reduce the compliance gap as much as possible before 2027, to increase investment and ensure adequate financing, including via EU funds, to achieve the objectives of their programmes of measures, as well as to put in place additional measures to reduce current persistent environmental challenges to and improve transboundary cooperation;

    M.  whereas the water legislation has been evaluated as fit for purpose; whereas it establishes a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater; whereas, at the same time, it allows for less stringent environmental objectives to be achieved if socio-economic needs served by such human activity cannot be achieved by other means and it allows for a failure to achieve the objectives for water bodies if the reason for the failure is overriding public interest; whereas the legislation is proportionate and mandates the authorities of the Member States, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, to decide on the overriding public interest; whereas in some cases this may be the protection of the environment and in others a socio-economic activity;

    N.  whereas industry accounts for approximately 40 % of total water abstraction in Europe; whereas the largest categories of the annual water abstraction in the EU-27, according to the statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community (NACE), are abstraction for cooling in electricity generation (34 %), followed by abstraction for agriculture (29 %), public water supply (21 %) and manufacturing (15 %)(35); whereas data on water abstraction and use in the EU is historical and poor(36);

    O.  whereas electricity production is the largest water-abstracting sector, but most of the water is returned to the environment after cooling or turbine propulsion; whereas overall, agriculture is the highest net water-consuming sector at the EU level, as most of the water is consumed by the crop or evaporates; whereas other uses, such as industry and water utilities, abstract and consume comparatively less water, but they can represent significant pressures at a local level, especially on groundwater(37);

    P.  whereas all industrial activity requires water to produce its end products or to support production activities; whereas businesses depend on water for their daily operations, and as water scarcity increases, it can disrupt operations, raise costs and create regulatory and reputational risks;

    Q.  whereas the energy sector relies heavily on water resources; whereas this dependency poses a serious risk as water scarcity can impact energy production processes and supply security, especially where water is used as feedstock or for cooling; whereas the transition to renewable energy, particularly wind and solar energy, offers sustainable and water-efficient decarbonisation pathways and the opportunity to halt or reverse the trend of increasing water consumption;

    R.  whereas water is an essential resource for agriculture in the production of high-quality food, feed and renewable raw materials; whereas agriculture depends on water availability and irrigation helps to shield farmers from irregular rainfall and to increase the viability, yield and quality of the crops, but is a significant drain on water resources; whereas in view of climate change, changing weather patterns and increased frequency of floods and droughts, the importance of water as a resource for the production of high-quality agricultural products and of the need for water to be used efficiently will therefore be fundamental to the security of food supply and to the solutions to address water scarcity; whereas reducing pressure on surface water and groundwater from agriculture must go hand in hand with investment aimed at the use of reclaimed water and innovative desalination technologies, thereby achieving a better water balance as well as promoting clean alternative energies such as green hydrogen;

    S.  whereas global population growth requires increased food production, and the EU must guarantee food sovereignty, as laid down in Article 39 TFEU;

    T.  whereas reliable data on water accounting, that is, the systematic study of the current status and trends in water supply, demand, accessibility and use in domains that have been specified(38), is crucial for an assessment of the current situation in the EU and for European competitiveness;

    U.  whereas the potential of wastewater as an alternative water supply is underestimated, given that 60-70 % of the potential value of wastewater across the EU is currently unexploited(39) and less than 3 % of treated wastewater is reused in the EU(40); whereas there is significant potential for circular approaches to water in households, as only a small amount of the water in households is used for drinking and eating and therefore requires the highest quality standards;

    V.  whereas a very large quantity of water is lost due to obsolete or ageing water networks and the lack of necessary maintenance; whereas investment in the maintenance, improvement and development of resilient innovative irrigation infrastructures is essential for reducing and improving the efficiency of water consumption in agriculture; whereas such improvements in efficiency enable the water saved to be used for other purposes or enable the natural flow rates of watercourses to be maintained;

    W.  whereas clean and sufficient water is an essential element in implementing and achieving a real sustainable circular economy in the EU;

    X.  whereas water leakage is an underestimated global issue, which significantly exacerbates water scarcity, with an average of 23 % of treated water lost during distribution in the EU due to leaky pipes, outdated treatment facilities and insufficient reservoirs(41); whereas the revised Drinking Water Directive included measures to reduce water leakages, as well as risk assessment and management of the catchment areas for drinking water abstraction;

    Y.  whereas in 2021, 91 % of Europe’s groundwater bodies were reported as having achieved ‘good quantitative status’, while 77 % were reported as having ‘good chemical status’(42);

    Z.  whereas in 2021, only 37 % of Europe’s surface water bodies were reported as being in ‘good’ or ‘high’ ecological status, while 29 % achieved ‘good chemical status’(43);

    AA.  whereas the European Environment Agency emphasises that the proportion of surface waters failing to achieve good ecological status is uneven across Europe, and that these are more prevalent in parts of central and western Europe, and stresses that differences in water status between the Member States may be caused by different pressures, but that those differences may also result from varying approaches to monitoring and assessment(44);

    AB.  whereas the quality of surface waters across the continent reflects continuing and combined pressures, in particular diffuse pollution and the degradation of their natural flow and physical features; whereas pollution by nutrients and persistent priority substances, as well as by substances newly emerging as pollutants, continues; whereas groundwaters are affected by diffuse pollution and also suffer from intensive abstraction(45);

    AC.  whereas groundwater supplies 65 % of water for drinking and 25 % of water for agricultural irrigation in the EU(46); whereas it is a finite resource that needs to be protected from pollution and over-exploitation(47);

    AD.  whereas monitoring data from the European Environment Agency indicates widespread pollution by per- and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS), commonly referred to as ‘forever chemicals’, in European waters, posing significant risks to aquatic ecosystems and human health; whereas short-chain PFAS trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) has been detected in drinking water all over Europe; whereas PFAS persist in the environment, bioaccumulate in living organisms and cause adverse (eco)toxicological effects; whereas from a group of 6 000 to 10 000 individual substances, only a few have been extensively studied and their impact on human health and environment is known; whereas 99 % of PFAS remain undetected in the environment as a result of limits in monitoring;

    AE.  whereas the lack of EU-wide quality standards for PFAS in groundwater and insufficient monitoring of less-studied PFAS compounds exacerbate the challenge of achieving good chemical status for EU waters in line with the WFD and pose a substantial technical and financial burden on health systems and on water service providers while jeopardising applications of water and sewage sludge reuse;

    AF.  whereas hazardous chemicals, including heavy metals and other pollutants, released into water bodies by industrial activities, significantly impact water quality and aquatic ecosystems(48);

    AG.  whereas pharmaceutical substances are increasingly identified in surface water and groundwater; whereas pollution caused by pharmaceutical residues necessitates advanced water treatment technologies, including membrane filtration, activated carbon treatment, advanced oxidation processes and other innovative purification techniques;

    AH.  whereas Directive 2010/75/EU(49) mandates that the potential aggravation of the impact of industrial discharges on the state of water bodies due to variations of water flow dynamics should be explicitly taken into account in the granting and reviewing of permits; whereas the best available techniques will newly incorporate notions of environmental performance levels related to water and permits, which translate the use of these techniques into environmental performance limit values; whereas this is a welcome change with a potential improvement to the industry’s resilience, as EU installations may already face a lower production capacity seasonally due to water scarcity;

    AI.  whereas urban wastewater is one of the main sources of water pollution, if not properly collected and treated; whereas the objectives of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive should not be lowered, and its scope should be extended to other sectors and substances that contribute to water pollution;

    AJ.  whereas nutrient pollution in EU water bodies leads to eutrophication, loss of biodiversity, and degradation of aquatic ecosystems(50); whereas pesticide run-off contaminates surface water and groundwater, threatening water quality and human health;

    AK.  whereas research indicates that exposure in Europe to the synthetic chemical bisphenol A (BPA), which is used in products ranging from plastic and metal food containers to reusable water bottles, is well above acceptable health safety levels(51);

    AL.  whereas soil and nutrient management lies at the basis of improving water quality and availability; whereas the EWRS should focus on improving nutrient management, with the aim of closing nutrient loops to reduce nutrient emissions to waterways; whereas the safe use of sewage sludge in agriculture will also reduce the EU’s very high dependency on the import of phosphorus mineral fertiliser, for example, from Russia; whereas the safe use of sludge should therefore also be considered as contributing to European resilience and strategic autonomy;

    AM.  whereas climate change represents a major threat to water resources and aquatic ecosystems; whereas many impacts of climate change are felt through water, such as more intense and frequent droughts, more extreme flooding and more erratic seasonal rainfall; whereas floods and water scarcity compromise food and water security, and the health of the general population, ultimately affecting social cohesion, economic prosperity and stability, as well as jeopardising the long-term availability of this valuable resource;

    AN.  whereas the European climate risk assessment recognised that Europe’s policies and adaptation actions are not keeping pace with the rapidly growing risks that threaten ecosystems, infrastructure, food and water supply and people’s health, as well as the economy and finance(52);

    AO.  whereas assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that the sea level rise due to climate change is leading to an increase in the salinity of soils and freshwaters, compromising ecosystem health and water quality, as well as affecting 80 million Europeans living in low elevation coastal zones and flood plains; whereas freshwater and marine ecosystems are interconnected as riverine pollution, disruption to sediment flows and water shortages all have a very strong impact on the health of marine ecosystems, particularly the coastal ones, as well as on the viability of social and economic activities that depend on them, such as transport, fisheries, agriculture, aquaculture and tourism;

    AP.  whereas prolonged drought, extreme heat and large-scale flooding events, caused by changing weather patterns, will intensify and become more frequent throughout the continent, damaging ecosystems and human health and leading to major disruption to economic activities and decreasing the overall quantity and quality of available water; whereas preserving water resources and the natural functions of rivers, while supplying sufficient water of good quality, is becoming a major challenge that will require increased climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, effective management and innovative measures to increase water availability; whereas managing water scarcity and flood risks affordably and sustainably will increasingly become important across the EU;

    AQ.  whereas in 2022, Europe experienced its hottest summer and the second warmest year on record, leading to drought impacting over 15 % of EU territory; whereas the average annual economic loss caused by droughts in the EU between1981 and 2010 was estimated at around EUR 9 billion per year; whereas with no adaptation measures, it is estimated that annual drought losses in Europe and the UK could increase to EUR 45 billion per year up to 2100 with warming of 3°C(53); whereas in the period of 1998-2020, floods comprised 43 % of all disaster events in Europe; whereas climate change impacts and socio-economic developments are leading to more frequent flooding, affecting an increasing number of people and causing increasing damage; whereas 12 % of Europe’s population lives in floodplains(54);

    AR.  whereas the cost of inaction in addressing water-related challenges is extremely high, given that 90 % of disasters are related to water(55); whereas without policy action, the cost of economic losses from coastal floods alone could exceed EUR 1 trillion per year by the end of the century in the EU(56) and the economic cost of droughts in Europe could exceed EUR 65 billion a year by 2100(57);

    AS.  whereas significant differences exist between the Member States in water availability, management strategies and usage patterns, and vulnerability to climate change impacts can vary considerably; whereas a tailored approach is required to enhance water resilience and ensure sustainable water management;

    AT.  whereas droughts constitute one of the chief catastrophic consequences of climate change; whereas around 23 % of the EU’s territory is moderately susceptible to desertification and 8 % is highly susceptible to it; whereas Hungary, Bulgaria, Spain and Italy are among the countries most affected, and 74 % of Spain’s surface area is at risk of desertification; whereas the EWRS should look beyond prolonged droughts, but rather address the reality that the semi-arid line is moving north, resulting in increasing areas in the EU that will face chronic long-term unavailability of sufficient freshwater resources;

    AU.  whereas policies related to desertification, water consumption and climate change are closely interconnected; whereas as part of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, the EU reaffirmed in 2015 and later re-confirmed in 2024(58) its commitment to achieving land degradation neutrality by 2030, which, according to the European Court of Auditors special report on desertification, is unlikely to be achieved;

    AV.  whereas water infrastructure can help maintain a constant and predictable flow and supply of water; whereas in 2022, the annual average river discharge across Europe was the second lowest since records began in 1991(59);

    AW.  whereas downstream areas are particularly dependent on upstream water management and abstraction; whereas the Member States should refrain from implementing measures that significantly increase flood risks upstream or downstream of other countries in the same river basin, in accordance with the WFD;

    AX.  whereas nature-based solutions are pertinent interventions that, when tailored to specific ecosystems and needs, can increase resilience in the water cycle and provide multiple benefits in terms of biodiversity protection, carbon sequestration, improved water quality, nutrient retention, supply of drinking water, wildfire prevention and flood risk mitigation; whereas nature-based solutions can enhance the effectiveness and the operable life of water infrastructure, therefore ensuring, in many cases, complementarity of both solutions;

    AY.  whereas natural water retention measures are nature-based solutions that aim to store water in natural, agricultural, forested and urban landscapes;

    AZ.  whereas water is not a commercial product like any other but, rather, a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as such; whereas, under Directive (EU) 2024/1203 on the protection of the environment through criminal law(60), abstraction of surface water or groundwater within the meaning of the WFD constitutes a criminal offence where such conduct is unlawful and intentional, and causes, or is likely to cause, substantial damage to the ecological status or the ecological potential of surface water bodies or to the quantitative status of groundwater bodies;

    BA.  whereas soil biodiversity and soil organic carbon affect water retention capacity; whereas soil erosion, compaction and certain soil management practices that cause soil degradation lead to a steady decrease in the water retention capacity of soil, which as a consequence exacerbates drought and flood events with a direct negative impact on farming; whereas healthy soil is therefore one of the drivers of water resilience, which itself should be approached and managed at river basin level; whereas better land management is key to preventing disasters;

    BB.  whereas the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) includes an ambitious but non-binding target of dedicating at least 7,5 % of annual EU spending to the biodiversity objectives in 2024 and 10 % in both 2026 and 2027; whereas the new financial framework should incorporate a water perspective with a view to allocating sufficient resources to the future EWRS in order to ensure resilient water ecosystems and infrastructure, and security of water supply, and to facilitate investments in innovative solutions;

    BC.  whereas cohesion funding has played a crucial role in improving water and sanitation services across the Member States; whereas continued support is required to ensure their long-term resilience and compliance with increasingly stringent quality standards;

    BD.  whereas pricing policies can improve the efficiency of water use; whereas such policies are a national competence and account for the regional differences in water availability and the source of water supply; whereas pricing can play a significant role in prompting households and other economic sectors to optimise consumption, as well as in ensuring that water users effectively participate in recovering the costs of water services; whereas pricing policies should also consider affordability for households and small businesses;

    BE.  whereas digitalisation and innovation can effectively assist the Member States, regional bodies and the Commission in collecting data on and monitoring water management; whereas the EU is at the forefront of new technological developments in the water sector, accounting for 40 % of all international patent families in this sector between 1992 and 2021(61), a position that needs to be fostered and nurtured, and the potential of the internal market fully exploited; whereas hurdles for the introduction and scaling-up of new water technologies need to be examined and a just European level playing field guaranteed; whereas continued support for research in water technology innovation is needed to secure and to create jobs and boost European competitiveness;

    BF.  whereas innovation is a crucial tool to help the water sector meet the challenges of the United Nation’s SDGs, adapt to climate change and become more water-efficient;

    BG.  whereas deployment of monitoring and modelling technologies is still lagging behind in many Member States, and the digitalisation of the sector is too slow; whereas provisions on the river basin management plans in the WFD do not explicitly include concrete measures to digitise the water sector; whereas common shortcomings for the current policies harnessing the potential digital solutions are related to the lack of technology guidance, monitoring standards, policy integration, standardisation and public involvement;

    BH.  whereas the water sector is vulnerable to various threats, including physical attacks, cyberattacks and contamination with harmful agents; whereas such incidents could result in widespread illness, casualties and service disruptions, significantly impacting public health, the environment and economic stability; whereas the digitalisation of water management might introduce further security risks in a context of increasing hostile attacks on critical infrastructure; whereas the implementation of the NIS2 Directive and Critical Entities Resilience Directive can contribute to mitigating security risks to vital (drinking) water systems and (drinking) water infrastructure, arising from geopolitical tensions;

    BI.  whereas advances in sensor technology, computing, artificial intelligence (AI) and big data management can help monitor water quantity and quality and inform the operational decisions of the policymakers and water management companies; whereas innovations in nature-based systems to manage water are available and can contribute to resilient water management;

    BJ.  whereas water is a vital component in the life cycle of AI, both in the operation of data centres and the manufacture of hardware; whereas the rapid expansion of AI could result in an exponential increase in water demand; whereas that dependency on an increasingly scarce resource poses significant challenges in terms of sustainability; whereas strategic technologies, such as semiconductors, hydrogen, electric vehicle batteries and data centres, play a key role in achieving a competitive and autonomous EU;

    BK.  whereas chiller and cooling tower systems, based on innovative cooling technologies such as evaporative and closed-loop cooling, are already available and can contribute to reducing water consumption in industrial, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems applications;

    BL.  whereas research must be promoted with a view to producing alternative active ingredients to combat pests, to ensure greater plant health and reduce the use of inputs and phytosanitary products;

    BM.  whereas water resilience is crucial in education and teaching, and in raising awareness and giving information about the functioning of the water cycle;

    BN.  whereas limited access to water and related infrastructure has a negative impact, especially on women, as it undermines the realisation of other human rights, such as self-determination, economic independence and education;

    BO.  whereas 60 % of European river basin districts are transnational, which makes effective transboundary cooperation crucial; whereas 20 European countries depend on other countries for more than 10 % of their water resources, with five countries relying on more than 75 % of their resources coming from abroad via rivers(62); whereas this cooperation should be strengthened to account for current and future climate challenges such as droughts and floods;

    BP.  whereas United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres appointed a Special Envoy on Water, aiming to enhance international cooperation and synergies among international water processes;

    BQ.  whereas clean water access and sustainable and resilient sanitation infrastructure are key components of the One Health approach, recognising the interconnection between the health of humans and water pollution;

    BR.  whereas water cooperation across borders and sectors generates many benefits, including enhancing food security, sustaining healthy livelihoods and ecosystems, helping address resilience to climate change, contributing to disaster risk reduction, providing renewable energy, supporting cities and industry, and fostering regional integration and peace;

    BS.  whereas geopolitical developments demonstrate that the EU should be ready to withstand the challenges that go beyond the environmental sphere; whereas non-environmental threats, such as recent accidents related to the damaged cable in the Baltic Sea, send the EU a strong message that strengthening transboundary cooperation is key in addressing both the environmental and security-related objectives;

    BT.  whereas about 41 000 kilometres of inland waterways flow through 25 of the Member States; whereas inland waterways, which rely on the availability of water resources, perform a crucial role in optimising water supply and mitigating the impact of droughts and floods, as well as supporting the economic activities and the development of regions;

    BU.  whereas the increasing water scarcity, inequalities in access to water, and external shocks to the water sector have heightened interdependencies, increasing competition for water and leading to complex economic repercussions;

    General remarks

    1.  Welcomes and supports President von der Leyen’s announcement in the political guidelines for the next European Commission (2024-2029) on putting forward a European Water Resilience Strategy (EWRS) addressing water efficiency, scarcity, pollution and water-related risks, as well as the recognition that water is an indispensable resource that is increasingly under stress from climate change and increasing demands;

    2.  Believes that while implementing legislation, economic competitiveness should be taken into account in line with the Competitiveness Compass; calls for the implementation of EU environmental legislation in order to build a resilient and competitive Europe, mitigate and adapt to climate change, halt biodiversity loss, prevent pollution, ensure food security, limit resource use and waste, and strive towards efficient use of resources, including water, while taking into account the precautionary principle, the control-at-source principle and the polluter-pays principle; highlights the fact that water availability impacts the quantity, quality, variety and seasonal availability of foods that can be produced;

    3.  Calls for the EU to integrate its commitments to the COP29 Baku Dialogue on Water for Climate Action and the UN 2023 Water Conference into the international dimension of the strategy;

    4.  Stresses the urgent need to enhance water resilience and management to ensure sustainable freshwater supplies for people, the economy and the environment; emphasises that the EWRS should be developed in coordination with the European Oceans Pact, ensuring a cohesive and integrated approach to managing freshwater and ocean resources, addressing interconnected challenges, enhancing competitiveness and promoting sustainable water management across inland and marine environments, while ensuring a holistic ‘source-to-sea’ approach;

    5.  Insists on the need for a comprehensive and holistic EWRS that integrates water quality, quantity, security, infrastructure, technology and management aspects and includes the restoration of the water cycle as a key element, as it underpins economic activities, ensures resource availability and contributes to climate regulation;

    6.  Stresses the importance of water supply, in particular drinking water, as well as water security of supply; points out that all environmental restoration projects should take into account the water security aspects, prioritising solutions that not only provide environmental benefits, but also guarantee the supply and efficient management of water; emphasises, furthermore, that ecological restoration measures should be carried out in synergy with the development of the EU’s renewable energy potential and not impact the overall energy resilience;

    7.  Recommends that lakes and other freshwater-dependent habitats be included in the strategy, alongside rivers, transitional waters and groundwater, as essential components of the EU’s water resilience efforts;

    8.  Stresses the urgent need to improve crisis-warning systems with regard to heavy water incidents, as well as to improve preventive measures;

    9.  Calls on the Commission to present a European climate adaptation plan, including concrete legislative proposals and actions, particularly regarding infrastructure resilience, water management and nature-based solutions, while prioritising the protection of vulnerable communities, to make the EU more resilient and to lead by example;

    10.  Reiterates that access to clean and safe drinking water and sanitation is a human right; emphasises that this right must be unequivocally ensured, with everyone having access to affordable and good quality water services, including the inhabitants of islands and outermost regions;

    11.  Stresses that no one, whether in public places or private establishments, should be denied access to water supplied from a distribution network intended for human consumption, where available;

    12.  Notes that industrial activities and agricultural production require water to produce their end products or to support production activities, with the amount of water used varying depending on the type of activity; highlights the fact that ensuring Europe’s competitiveness and strategic autonomy requires a water-smart society where technology and data enhance a circular economy, fostering sustainable and water-efficient practices; calls on all relevant actors to accelerate the transition towards water-efficient, circular industry and agriculture by promoting and investing in innovative solutions, including digital tools and technologies, resource recovery, water reuse, renewable energy production, infrastructure, nature-based solutions and inclusive governance mechanisms;

    13.  Urges the Commission to integrate and mainstream the water dimension into internal and external EU policies through a cross-sectoral approach in order to ensure that water resilience, sustainability and security is woven into the fabric of European policies; calls on the Commission, in particular, to carry out a water-related assessment of any regulatory measure, including related to energy, as part of the socio-economic and environmental impact assessment; emphasises that assessing how each EU policy, and EU-funded projects and infrastructure, can impact water resources in terms of quantity, quality and accessibility would ensure that water resilience is a cornerstone of policy formulation and implementation, thus shifting the paradigm from treating water as an infinite resource to recognising its intrinsic value for humanity and for the EU’s ecological and socio-economic landscape and its competitiveness;

    Water efficiency

    14.  Stresses that efficient water use is essential for preserving the EU’s water resources and that water efficiency should be a key objective of the EU; calls, in this regard, for a consequential reduction in water demand, including by addressing excessive leakage levels, investing in research and innovative solutions, modernising industrial and production processes, upgrading water infrastructure, managing water resources and peak demands sustainably, prioritising uses and ensuring that higher water efficiency results in a reduction in overall freshwater consumption as well as in an increase in water availability in water-stressed areas at the local and regional levels; believes that areas affected by prolonged drought and desertification should be given priority;

    15.  Calls for a legislative framework setting sectoral water efficiency and water abstraction targets at basin level, based on up-to-date assessments of water availability and climate risks, including a water valuation approach that accounts for ecosystem services and long-term sustainability, and covering all water uses, including industry, energy, agriculture, public institutions and households; underlines the fact that these targets should be ambitious yet adaptable, taking into account the specific circumstances and progress already achieved by each Member State to ensure continued efforts towards efficiency gains across all regions; stresses the importance of efficient and uniform data collection practices across the Member States and all sectors, including through the use of innovative technologies, as well as real-time data collection points for more transparency on water consumption; emphasises the need to carry out an appropriate assessment of the environmental and socio-economic impacts of water use; stresses that the strategic importance of food production must not be compromised; emphasises that science, research and technology are important for water efficiency and water use as well as for the circular economy in this regard; calls for the creation and promotion of new smart and high-performance irrigation systems, rainwater retention and water from reuse, as well as water-efficient irrigation systems;

    16.  Reiterates the need to develop a common EU methodology for setting water efficiency and water abstraction targets to ensure the sustainable use of available renewable water resources within an integrated water resources management framework which gives due consideration to linkages beyond the water sector through the water-energy-food-ecosystems nexus, thus enabling decision-makers and economic actors to plan the necessary investment to ensure water supply security in an increasingly sustainable manner, while giving due consideration to the characteristics of the water bodies concerned;

    17.  Calls for close collaboration on integrated energy and water resource planning and related technologies across all sectors at national, regional and local levels, including between all stakeholders, in order to establish mechanisms for ensuring coherence across water and energy policies;

    18.  Calls on the Commission to put forward a comprehensive policy on sustainable water management for industry based on reducing, recovering, reusing and recycling, including a focus on the use of water-efficient and circular technologies, water recycling, pollutant reduction strategies and the promotion of closed-loop systems;

    19.  Recalls that the growing threat of water scarcity is jeopardising industries and projects that are key to Europe’s competitiveness drive, including semiconductors, data centres, renewable hydrogen and electric vehicle battery production; notes that these industries will increasingly face pressure to reduce their environmental impact and improve water resource efficiency, including both direct and indirect water usage; calls on the Member States to support water-intensive industries in setting up water-efficiency plans aimed at saving, reusing and recycling water, preventing water pollution and implementing water-efficient technologies; calls on the Commission to incorporate comprehensive water management strategies into relevant EU industrial policies and sector-specific transition pathways, with a particular focus on strategic water-intensive sectors;

    20.  Stresses that knowledge, data, research and technology are key for efficient water use; calls for adequate financial and technical support to be given to the Member States to implement efficient water management measures, including by means of innovative and modern technologies;

    21.  Welcomes the recommendations of the final report of the Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU agriculture underlining that sustainable farming practices and new business models need to be scaled up to promote more efficient use of natural resources, especially water;

    22.  Calls for the transition to a more sustainable and competitive farming model, assisted by the implementation of sustainable practices and innovative solutions that promote biodiversity, reduce chemical inputs and enable water resources to be managed efficiently, including nature-based solutions, regenerative management, smart precision irrigation technologies, digital monitoring systems, advanced treatment methods and smart water distribution networks, optimising consumption and preventing water resource depletion, and that help ensure continued productivity while enabling agriculture to reduce pollution, use pesticides and fertilisers efficiently, improve the hydrological cycle, enhance groundwater recharge and adapt to lower water use; considers that technological solutions can also include measures that can increase water absorption, infiltration and retention in agricultural systems, which are important amid increasing occurrences of both drought and heavy rains;

    23.  Points out that innovative irrigation solutions and practices can enhance water efficiency in agriculture, gaining an economic advantage while also reducing environmental burdens; notes that farmers generally lack sufficient means and incentives to know about water use by crops, actual irrigation applications, the yield responses of crops to different water management practices, and thus current on-farm water-efficiency levels; calls on the Commission and the Member States to incentivise the uptake and support the maintenance of innovative irrigation solutions such as drip irrigation to allow for an active management of water levels and efficient use of water resources, as well as to promote continuous knowledge exchange, so that all relevant stakeholders can share greater responsibility across the entire water supply chain;

    24.  Recalls that the use of nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate is essential for food production, as this activity would not be possible without their use; recommends better consideration of the nutrient cycle in agricultural production and the exploitation of the value in urban wastewater; calls for more research into the effective use of nutrients and the development of nutrient recovery technologies, in order to decrease the Union’s dependence on imported raw materials; recognises the high potential for nutrient recovery from water and calls on the Member States to support the agricultural sector to optimise their nutrient consumption including by using resources (nitrate and phosphorus) recovered from wastewater treatment plants; calls on the Commission to propose an integrated nutrient management action plan to effectively address loss of valuable agricultural inputs, recycling of nutrients, nutrient pollution and inefficiencies in the nutrient cycle; calls for the proper and safe recovery of phosphorus from organic sources and for incentivising investments in its recovery and circular nutrient management in accordance with the Commission’s JRC publication(63);

    25.  Stresses that the current Nitrates Directive is due for revision, as outdated provisions promote the use of artificial fertilisers rather than organic manure; calls for an urgent review of the Nitrates Directive before the end of this year, and its revision to promote circular nutrient management;

    26.  Emphasises, in line with the final report of the Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU agriculture, the need to support the transition to regionally adapted crop and seed varieties and the switch to different crops, with reduced water requirements and greater drought resistance, as well as the need to support the adoption of appropriate soil management practices; considers the need for stronger support for scientific research and technological development related to the breeding of new species, to enable the production and supply of foodstuffs to be diversified and their quality enhanced, while raising the level of protection for human health and the environment; notes the potential of plant varieties that are more resistant to water stress and pests and could play a role in reducing water use and could reduce the environmental footprint of crops;

    27.  Calls for financial and technical support for farmers and rural communities, particularly in water-stressed areas, to help them adopt sustainable land management practices that improve soil and water quality, contribute to biodiversity and mitigate climate change; emphasises the need for special attention to be given to regions that are particularly vulnerable to soil degradation and water scarcity;

    28.  Acknowledges the significant efforts made by farmers to enhance water quality and emphasises the need for an appropriate timeframe to allow the effects of these measures to be accurately assessed;

    29.  Points to the success of the agricultural European Innovation Partnership EIP‑AGRI and calls for the continuation of knowledge exchange, expertise and peer-to-peer learning via the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Network;

    30.  Notes the links between carbon sinking and water availability, and calls for coherence between the water resilience strategy and carbon farming schemes;

    31.  Reiterates that the Water Reuse Regulation aims at reducing the pressure on water bodies by setting out provisions on reusing water after appropriate treatment extends its life cycle, thereby preserving water resources; emphasises, however, that regulatory, financial and technological barriers, including the economic competitiveness of reclaimed wastewater, risk management planning and the sharing of responsibilities, contribute to the slow uptake of reuse of reclaimed water for agriculture; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to adopt supportive policies, at both the EU and the local level, that incentivise water reuse practices, taking into account the importance of adapting wastewater treatment and quality requirements to the intended water use; notes that treated wastewater also finds valuable applications in various industrial processes and urban contexts, contributing to reducing the pressure on freshwater resources and the conservation of drinking water; calls therefore on the Commission to assess a possible extension of the scope of the Water Reuse Regulation in order to establish, at EU level, minimum water quality standards for safe water reuse for industrial and urban purposes;

    32.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to specify systems of regulatory and financial incentives for the reuse of treated wastewater in water-intensive sectors and to provide specific funding for the construction of infrastructure connecting wastewater treatment plants and refined water distribution networks; urges a streamlined approach in EU legislation to remove administrative barriers and promote safe and efficient water recycling across the Member States; calls on the Member States to set up national water reuse and saving plans to incentivise cross-sectoral cooperation in water management;

    33.  Reiterates that reused water could alleviate abstraction from rivers, lakes and groundwater for irrigated agriculture; underlines the fact that reused water can contribute to maintaining base flows and minimum water levels during dry periods;

    34.  Highlights the potential of the building sector to save water, for example, with the help of smart sub-metering systems, efficient greywater systems, reuse of domestic wastewater or rainwater harvesting; stresses that the energy performance of buildings can be enhanced by water efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions; calls on the Member States and local authorities to incentivise water-saving features in new buildings; stresses, in this regard, that water-efficient practices should be factored into urban planning; highlights the fact that harvesting rain water as well as using and reusing water efficiently can improve climate adaptation in cities;

    35.  Calls for the transition, in industry and in the energy and digital sectors, to optimised cooling efficiency and alternative cooling methods that are less water-dependent, in order to ensure significant water savings in these sectors;

    36.  Points out that, while households represent 10 % of the overall water consumption in the EU, action on improving domestic water efficiency is also necessary; notes that water-saving technological solutions are readily available and can reduce water consumption in households without compromising comfort or requiring high investment; calls on the Member States to support consumers in transitioning towards such technologies and to strengthen consumer awareness of water consumption and potential efficiency gains by anchoring domestic water efficiency in water, building and consumer policies across the EU;

    37.  Notes that the leakage rates from pipes are high in some Member States, which increases the total share of domestic water consumption; welcomes the provisions of the new Drinking Water Directive on leakage rates and the ongoing work of the Commission to evaluate those rates and set threshold values that will trigger action in the Member States concerned; calls on the Member States to urgently tackle leakage in water supply networks and to fully implement the monitoring and reporting requirements of the Drinking Water Directive, so that the Commission can set a threshold value for leakage by January 2028; emphasises the need for sustainable urban irrigation networks to be modernised, to curb leakages and reduce their water footprint; calls on the Member States to regularly inform the public about the efficiency and effectiveness of their water supplies;

    38.  Points out that public sector organisations provide significant untapped potential for saving water by virtue of their size or their nature as public organisations; believes that the public sector should act as a role model for other sectors;

    39.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote easily accessible and free information, training, advisory programmes and information campaigns aimed at raising public awareness of sustainable water resource management;

    40.  Recommends that water-efficiency aspects, such as reductions in water loss and reuse of water, be integrated in the upcoming revision of the public procurement framework;

    Water pollution

    41.  Underlines the fact that the existing EU water policy framework is designed to address the effective management of water resources and the protection and restoration of freshwater and marine ecosystems, but that its poor implementation and enforcement, insufficient funding and lack of proper cost-benefit analyses of the implementation measures undermine its effectiveness;

    42.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to implement and enforce the current legislation, in particular the WFD and its ‘daughter’ directives (the Groundwater Directive and the Environmental Quality Standards Directive), with a particular focus on strengthening the monitoring and reporting mechanisms to ensure that all Member States consistently implement the required water protection measures; recalls the need for sufficient funding to implement these acts;

    43.  Stresses that the chemical pollution of surface water and groundwater poses a threat to the aquatic environment, with effects such as acute and chronic toxicity in aquatic organisms, accumulation of pollutants in the ecosystem and loss of habitats and biodiversity, as well as to human health;

    44.  Calls for the establishment of comprehensive EU-wide quality standards for PFAS in groundwater and surface water; stresses that respective updates of the relevant directives are essential for safeguarding water quality and achieving good chemical status for water bodies as mandated under the WFD;

    45.  Insists that essential uses of PFAS in critical sectors, such as medical devices, pharmaceuticals and products necessary for the twin transition to a climate neutral and digital economy, are not endangered in the context of upcoming legislative and non-legislative proposals; calls on the Commission to propose to phase out forever chemicals (PFAS) – starting with consumer goods – linked to harmful effects on human health and the environment, based on scientific evidence, allowing their use where there are no safe alternatives; underlines the need to scale up investments and accelerate the research and development of equivalent and safe alternatives;

    46.  Calls on the Commission to propose updated limits on PFAS in drinking water, taking into account the latest scientific knowledge;

    47.  Emphasises the urgency of addressing, primarily at the source, and effectively monitoring pollution from pharmaceuticals, bisphenols, antimicrobial resistance genes, persistent organic pollutants and other existing and emerging pollutants, to align with the EU’s zero pollution ambition and the goal of achieving good chemical status for all water bodies;

    48.  Calls on the Commission to close the gaps with enhanced funding and the enforcement of current laws, and the integration of circular economy principles to mitigate pollution at its source and safeguard water ecosystems for future generations; underscores the fact that antibiotic-resistant bacteria and certain emerging pollutants remain insufficiently addressed, necessitating further innovation and investment; emphasises the need for all sectors to apply sustainable production processes and circular practices, proactively preventing pollutants from entering water systems;

    49.  Recalls that microplastics may enter drinking water sources in a number of ways: from surface run-off (for example, after a rain event) to wastewater effluent (both treated and untreated), combined sewer overflows, industrial effluent, degraded plastic waste and atmospheric deposition; calls on the Commission to put forward, in line with the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive, a full risk assessment of microplastics in drinking water, while continuously working on reliable and robust sampling and analytical methods in order to appropriately address the potential threat of this emerging pollutant to sources of water intended for human consumption;

    50.  Emphasises the need to improve the monitoring and regulation of plastic pollution in freshwater and marine environments, with particular attention to microplastics and single-use plastics; encourages the Commission to assess current enforcement mechanisms and consider further measures to protect water quality;

    51.  Calls on the stakeholders to develop safe water contact materials, to substitute BPA and other bisphenols and ensure compliance with Regulation (EU) 1935/2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food(64) and the recently adopted provisions as regards the use of BPA and other bisphenols and bisphenol derivatives (Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/3190);

    52.  Recalls that the revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, in effect since 1 January 2025, imposes new obligations regarding water purification, requiring pharmaceutical and cosmetic producers to cover at least 80 % of the costs of removing micropollutants from wastewater, with the aim of reducing harmful substances in the environment; notes the existence of differing figures and assessments regarding the impact this would have on the pharmaceutical sector and, consequently, on the availability and affordability of medicines, and therefore calls on the Commission to conduct a new and comprehensive assessment of the impact on this sector;

    53.  Calls for increased EU support for local authorities for the modernisation of wastewater treatment plants and the promotion of water reuse, to align with the EU’s zero pollution ambition, ensuring that municipal wastewater management contributes effectively to good chemical and ecological water status;

    54.  Calls for increased monitoring of pesticide residues in water bodies and enforcement of pesticide application regulations to mitigate their impact on water quality; stresses the need for increased funding to support farmers in the adoption of low-input and organic farming practices that reduce reliance on chemical pesticides and fertilisers, as well as to provide appropriate training and independent advisory services to farmers and other operators on the use, effectiveness and toxicity of pesticides, as well as best practice;

    55.  Insists on the integration of circular economy principles to reduce hazardous chemical use in industrial processes; stresses the need for additional funding to support industries in transitioning to clean technologies that minimise water pollution(65);

    56.  Recognises the role of treated sludge as a local and circular source of fertiliser, contributing to soil health, nutrient recycling and reduced dependency on synthetic fertilisers; emphasises the importance of preventing PFAS, heavy metals, microplastics and other harmful substances from entering sewer networks in order to enable the safe and sustainable use of high-quality sewage sludge in agriculture;

    57.  Calls on the Commission to include an overview of measures in an annex to the EWRS, with a timeline for achieving the objectives in question;

    Adaptation to climate change: floods, droughts, stress areas, disaster preparedness

    58.  Calls for the climate adaptation proofing of all new EU legislative and non-legislative acts in order to ensure the integration of climate adaptation into sectoral plans and policy measures affecting water and land use; highlights, in this regard, the need for increased climate ambition as part of the fight against climate change, while urging the Member States to ensure that all climate adaptation measures affecting water use contribute to long-term, improved water resilience; calls on the Commission to take fully into account the geographical and environmental conditions in the Member States, as well as the specific situation of islands, outermost regions and other areas of high vulnerability, such as areas affected by desertification, when adopting new legislative and non-legislative proposals; asks the Commission to present a roadmap for current and ongoing legislative and non-legislative policy measures, including targets and monitoring requirements affecting water and land use;

    59.  Emphasises the need for tailored climate adaptation measures for the Mediterranean region, which faces unique challenges such as prolonged droughts and saline intrusion into freshwater resources;

    60.  Stresses the specific challenges faced by island areas due to the scarcity of drinking water and calls for targeted measures to protect island water resources, including improving rainwater collection and storage infrastructure, and implementing alternative water sources, while enhancing water resource monitoring and management systems; calls, further, on the Member States to take better account of mountainous regions in national adaptation plans in order to meet the specific challenges of water management in mountainous areas;

    61.  Reiterates that climate change mitigation and adaptation solutions should not come at the cost of ecosystem degradation, and should avoid increasing the demand for water- and energy-intensive activities, and should instead prioritise energy- and water-efficient innovation and technologies as part of moving towards a more resource-efficient economy, without undermining its productivity, while ensuring equitable access to water for all; points out that, in order to be effective, climate change mitigation and adaptation solutions should be tailored to national circumstances, while enhancing competitiveness and productivity in the short and long term; points out the possibilities of synergies, in this regard, with innovative energy production such as photovoltaics and biogas, as it can also contribute to an increase in agricultural income;

    62.  Recognises the importance of reserving water for nature and the need to maintain healthy freshwater ecosystems, for the good functioning of the water cycle, for human activities and for mitigating the impacts of droughts and water scarcity; underlines, in the context of restoring freshwater ecosystems and the natural functions of rivers, the importance of removing ‘obsolete barriers’, namely artificial barriers that no longer fulfil their original purpose or are no longer needed, wherever such opportunities exist, on the basis of current knowledge and experience; calls for the establishment of specific programmes for the cleaning and conservation of river channels, ensuring minimum flow and reducing the accumulation of debris and sediment that can affect water storage and distribution capacity;

    63.  Insists that, with climate change impact becoming more persistent, flood and drought management must fully integrate the arising risks, including changing weather patterns, such as increased rain patterns leading to excess of water; is convinced that a combination of monitoring and data collection, preparedness, emergency and recovery responses taking into account the principle of ‘building back better’(66)on the one hand, and adapting societal and economic activities on the other, is essential to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience, especially in the light of the quantitative aspect of water becoming more prominent; stresses, in this regard, the need for climate-resilient nature-based solutions and infrastructure that take into account the impact of extreme climate events in their development to ensure their viability in the face of extreme climate events;

    64.  Recalls that in 2007, the WFD was supplemented by Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks, which aims to establish a framework to reduce the adverse consequences of flooding on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity; notes that making the two directives mutually compatible is achieved through risk management plans and river basin flood management plans as the components of an integrated water management system in which coordination is crucial; recalls that flood prevention is closely connected to urban green spaces, soil protection strategies and investment in drainage networks;

    65.  Stresses that preparedness for water scarcity and drought can be significantly improved in the EU, considering that no drought management plans are in place in several Member States(67); calls on the Member States and, where applicable, competent regional and local authorities, to develop drought management plans, particularly with a view to ensuring the provision of drinking water, ensuring food production and integrating digitalised monitoring, control and early warning systems in order to support effective and data-based decisions on protection, response and communication measures with clearly defined areas of responsibility; points out the need to introduce EU-level provisions as regards drought management plans, similar to the ones on flood management plans;

    66.  Insists, in view of the numerous climatic events, such as floods, droughts and cyclones, which have affected Europe, on the importance of the EU having a robust mechanism for responding to such crises, including systems for warning and providing assistance to the civilian population; points out that digital monitoring, adequate public display of relevant data and early warning systems are key to developing effective drought and flood management plans at the level of the Member States; emphasises, further, the importance of fully using the available EU tools, such as the flood forecasts of the European Flood Awareness System and the Global Flood Awareness System, and the Global Flood Monitoring tool, as part of the Copernicus Emergency Management Service;

    67.  Stresses the importance of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) in helping countries hit by water-related disasters such as flood and droughts; calls for increased funding to provide the UCPM with sufficient and upgraded resources in order to increase preparedness and improve capacity building;

    68.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to enhance citizen preparedness in the event of water-related disasters or crisis; stresses the importance of information campaigns and demonstration exercises in education facilities, public administration and businesses in order to build a ‘preparedness culture’ for citizens;

    69.  Calls on the Member States to systematically renew and upgrade their water infrastructure, including drinking water and sanitation infrastructure, as well as infrastructure regulating river flows, and to invest in innovative solutions based on good practice, making water systems more resilient to climate change, ensuring stable drinking water supply, enabling the early detection of losses and reducing water leakages and waste, while optimising water transport and storage systems; highlights the fact that funding for innovative water infrastructure is insufficient compared to the investment needs across the EU; calls, in this regard, for dedicated funding, on national, regional or EU level, to ensure adequate financing for the development, maintenance and modernisation of water-resilient infrastructure, to foster innovative solutions and technologies and ensure long-term sustainability of that water infrastructure;

    70.  Regrets that, despite the threat that desertification poses to water quality and availability, soil fertility and food production, and despite the fact that 13 Member States have declared themselves to be affected by desertification in the context of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, the Commission is not addressing desertification effectively and efficiently; urges the Commission, therefore, in line with the Council conclusions of 14 October 2024 on desertification, land degradation and drought, to present an integrated EU-wide action plan to combat desertification, land degradation and drought, aiming at building resilience to drought and achieving land degradation neutrality in the EU by 2030, based on a full impact assessment;

    71.  Insists that the agricultural sector be further supported in implementing new technologies to reduce the demand for water, while at the same time increasing access to water, including by supporting water retention and groundwater recharge; calls for research results, for example on seawater desalination, to be made accessible and to facilitate the deployment of innovative desalination solutions; calls on the Member States to create natural water reserves based on up-to-date assessments of climate risks to protect critical water supplies and their catchments, and taking into consideration the environmental and socio-economic impact of developing such reserves; points out that such natural water reserves would complement the WFD’s requirement for Member States to identify water bodies used for drinking water abstraction, making sure they meet the objectives set out in Article 4 WFD and in the Drinking Water Directive, and would ensure their necessary protection; notes that such natural water reserves already exist under different forms in various Member States; stresses that assistance should be given to Member States or local and regional governments to help them develop natural water reserves;

    72.  Notes the potential of retention infrastructure as an example of water generation systems created using the best available, cost-effective techniques that have the lowest environmental impact, including by means of wastewater reuse or rainwater collection, in order to reduce the risks of droughts and floods, increase water security and foster circularity, water reclamation and reuse; believes that water retention facilities may be useful tools provided that they are authorised by local or national authorities under clear conditions, including the capacity of local groundwater to sustain such activities and the need for farmers accessing the water resource to adapt their practices to more sustainable practices, in particular in terms of water needs and water quality; calls on the Commission to use its available tools, including financial support, to streamline this approach among the Member States;

    73.  Deplores the unlawful or intentional abstraction of water, which is likely to cause substantial damage to water bodies; calls for strong dissuasive measures to be applied, including through the criminal law, to protect the ecological status or the ecological potential of surface water bodies or of the quantitative status of groundwater bodies; notes that additional support for training and knowledge transfer for national enforcement capacities is needed;

    74.  Notes the important cross-cutting role of nature-based solutions in addressing the challenges of the triple planetary crisis and restoring the natural water cycle; calls on the Commission and the Member States to prioritise, taking into account the environmental and socio-economic impacts, the deployment of nature-based solutions for water resilience in their policy actions and recommendations, such as the re-wetting of wetlands and peatlands to increase ground water availability and surrounding soil moisture, the restoration and protection of floodplains, natural water retention measures, revegetation as a barrier against floods, and rainwater conservation, in order to strengthen water availability, mitigate climate change risks and support long-term resilience for communities, businesses and food production; underlines that, in addition to nature-based solutions, complementary investment in engineering solutions remains necessary to ensure successful climate adaptation and water resilience in the long term;

    Funding and pricing

    75.  Notes that nature-based solutions and natural water retention measures have the potential to restore groundwater levels and support ecological flows while reducing water-related risks from water scarcity, floods and droughts; notes that in flood management, nature-based solutions cannot usually replace existing solutions and may not be effective for the most extreme events; points out, however, that nature-based solutions can enhance the effectiveness and operable life of grey infrastructure by increasing water absorption capacity, reducing water velocity and regulating peak flows; reiterates, in this regard, that the effectiveness of nature-based solutions is context-specific and must be adapted to the local situation; emphasises in this regard that a ‘one solution that fits all’ does not exist;

    76.  Stresses the need to provide financial support for sustainable innovative methods and solutions, while having due regard to public-private partnerships;

    77.  Stresses, in the context of climate adaptation, the importance of healthy soils in ensuring water security and circularity; emphasises that the natural water retention of soils must be improved through measures to enhance soil health, minimising carbon losses, as well as actions at the level of the water body, such as the stabilisation of riverbanks, including through re-naturalisation, and the restoration of the retention capacities of aquifers;

    78.  Notes that thoroughly designed forest management measures can improve watershed health, regulate water flow and reduce drought and flood stress, given the essential role of trees and forests in water cycle regulation, through their ability to purify water, increase the availability of water resources and improve soil moisture retention; proposes that this be duly considered when the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, develops Union disaster resilience goals and that it be considered in the development and refinement of disaster risk management and contingency planning; highlights the need, in this regard, for more research, data collection, innovation and funding to support land managers in preventing the impact of environmental stressors such as drought floods and diminishing watershed function;

    79.  Recognises that urban areas are increasingly vulnerable to water-related climate risks such as flooding, water shortages and heat stress; calls for the integration of urban water resilience planning into climate adaptation strategies, including investment in green roofs, permeable infrastructure, rainwater harvesting and storm water retention systems, as well as measures aimed at increasing green and blue spaces in urban areas, in order to mitigate extreme weather impacts and to reduce the risks to human life and property; calls further for the maintenance of, and regained access to, urban waterways in cities;

    80.  Emphasises that the EWRS should ensure adequate funding from public and private sources in order to support the modernisation, upgrading, adaptation and maintenance of resilient water infrastructure, sustainable water management, data collection, research, effective monitoring, digitalisation, upskilling, nature-based solutions, the development and the uptake of innovative water-efficient technologies, as well as to ensure environmental and socio-economic sustainability in line with the goals set by the new European Competitiveness Compass;

    81.  Calls on the Commission to create a separate and dedicated fund for water resilience within the upcoming MFF; believes that specific financial mechanisms should also be established within the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund to support water-smart technologies and water investment; strongly believes that, in the interim, water should be prioritised in existing funding frameworks, including the Cohesion Fund; stresses that EU funding mechanisms must incorporate considerations of social equity and affordability, in particular in the context of providing water services to the population, ensuring support for Member States and citizens with greater financial constraints and specific realities, while meeting water management obligations; highlights the importance of adjusting existing funding, subsidies and financing streams related to water management and other related land uses, moving away from outdated engineering solutions to innovative ones, as well as nature-based solutions or a combination thereof;

    82.  Calls for targeted funding, via Horizon Europe and the EIP-AGRI, for field trials on the water relations of different cropping systems; calls for the recognition of the role of women in water policies and for specific funding to be identified to promote their access to agriculture;

    83.  Recalls that the lack of dedicated funding for water or binding funding targets within the current MFF limits the EU’s capacity to direct targeted investment towards essential water resilience measures, including infrastructure modernisation, innovation, climate adaptation measures and the implementation of nature-based solutions, and thus its competitive capacity, as the absence of a water balance creates an additional burden for the economy of the regions; notes that outermost and mountainous regions and islands in the EU are particularly struggling to access funding or public-private partnerships to support local and regional investment in water management and infrastructure;

    84.  Stresses the important role of the European Investment Bank (EIB) in water financing; highlights the fact that the EIB is actively investing in and supporting the water sector; stresses that the EU should collaborate with the EIB to share best practice and calls, further, on the EIB and other financial institutions to strengthen their role in the funding of innovative and resilient water infrastructure, improved sanitation and drinking water infrastructure, digitalisation, as well as to support projects aimed at flood risk reduction, erosion prevention and the revitalization of watercourses, by facilitating favourable conditions for water investment;

    85.  Urges the Commission to explore and promote innovative financing mechanisms, including payments for ecosystem services and green bonds, while ensuring regulatory clarity and safeguards to prevent market distortions; calls on the EIB and other financial institutions to prioritise low-interest loans and credits for Member States and regional and local authorities undertaking large-scale restoration projects, with specific provisions to support economically disadvantaged regions;

    86.  Highlights the importance of public-private partnerships as a source of funding for water investment; calls on the Commission to incentivise private investment in the water sector by creating a supportive regulatory framework that may include co-financing opportunities and public-private partnerships in order to drive innovation, improve infrastructure and ensure sustainable water management solutions across the Member States; underlines, nevertheless, that the involvement of private investment in the EU water sector must not undermine the status of water as a public good and a public service, and that the long-term resilience of the sector, as well as the principles of accessibility, affordability and sustainability must be ensured;

    87.  Calls on the Member States to adopt governance frameworks that clearly define the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in planning, financing and implementing nature-based solutions; believes that these frameworks should integrate funding from diverse sources, including philanthropic contributions and private-sector partnerships, while ensuring equitable access to resources for small-scale projects, particularly managed at local or regional levels;

    88.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to address water aspects in their budgets and to improve governance within the regions in the use of EU funds;

    89.  Underlines the need to provide targeted financial and technical assistance to municipalities to facilitate compliance with water-related legislation;

    90.  Encourages the Member States to accelerate the granting of authorisations for sustainable and innovative resilient water infrastructure projects to enable their rapid implementation in the face of the urgent challenges;

    91.  Notes that the application of the cost recovery principle on water services, which provides that all water users effectively and proportionately participate financially in the recovery of the costs of water services, remains low to non-existent in several Member States; calls on the Member States and their regional authorities to implement adequate water pricing policies and apply the cost recovery principle for both environmental and resource costs in line with the WFD; calls on the Member States to take into account the long investment cycles when implementing the cost recovery principle and to ensure sufficient funding is available for needed (re)investment;

    92.  Stresses the importance of ensuring that water pricing supports long-term water security by reflecting the economic, environmental and resource costs of water use; encourages the Member States and competent regional and local authorities to ensure that water pricing is economically sustainable, socially fair and promotes efficient water use, and that it reflects the availability of water across different Member States and regions, particularly in water-stressed regions, while safeguarding affordability for households and small businesses; calls on the Member States and competent regional and local authorities to insure transparent water prices and to raise awareness of the value of water services;

    93.  Points out that competent national water authorities will play a central role in implementing new water management and conservation plans at the level of the Member States; calls, therefore, on the Members States to financially and technically increase the capacity of those competent authorities to play a more significant enabling and advisory role in sustainable and future-proof water management and storage infrastructure; believes that EU funds, such as the Just Transition Fund, should be used to further assist Member States and water agencies in implementation;

    Digitalisation, security and technological innovation

    94.  Stresses the potential and the necessity for digitalisation and AI in improving the management and monitoring of bodies of water and water infrastructure, as well as in reporting and ensuring the comparability of data reflecting different geographical flow conditions;

    95.  Calls on the Commission, the Member States and water providers to mainstream transparency and digitalisation as fundamental principles in water management and to enhance the use of management and metering data, with the aim of strengthening monitoring, assessment, accountability and decision-making, while optimising and simplifying reporting obligations; calls for digitally enabled water technologies to facilitate real-time, sample-based and distance monitoring and reporting on water quality, leakages, usage and resources; calls for improved efficiency in the use of public funds and public spending in this area; recognises that widespread deployment of innovative digital technologies needs to be accompanied by digital skills training;

    96.  Emphasises the need to promote digitalisation and data-centric solutions in building a water-smart society; stresses the need to develop digital solutions for monitoring water consumption and optimising the use of water resources across all sectors; calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to provide financial support for the implementation of smart water management systems, focusing on the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);

    97.  Points out that water systems, including water treatment and distribution systems, are considered one of the nation’s critical infrastructures and security pillars, and hence key for the EU’s strategic autonomy, and require increased protection and the ability of utilities to detect, respond to, and recover from physical and cyberthreats and cyberattacks; notes that a higher level of digitalisation comes with new vulnerabilities; points out that, in the event of a threat or an attack, water system operators can lose their ability to control the flow and quality of the water or lose the ability to track the true status of the water system; insists that vulnerability assessments and an emergency response plan should be an integral part of the water management system in every Member State; encourages the promotion of information sharing about threats to cybersecurity and procedures to exchange best practice among operators, as well as to establish a cybersecurity culture through technical security measures, competence building and awareness creation and communication; draws attention to the measures and provisions in the NIS2 Directive and the Critical Entities Resilience Directive which could help mitigate the arising security risks; calls on the Commission to take the lead in reinforcing the EU-level coordination formats and to propose effective tools in the upcoming Preparedness Union Strategy with the aim of ensuring timely preparedness to tackle environmental and non-environmental risks to the water bodies that are threatening the EU’s overall security;

    98.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to increase the involvement of women in decisions regarding water resilience; calls for the adoption of a methodological approach that effectively considers gender-related needs in the implementation of water supply projects, by implementing monitoring, reporting and tracking that use tools and indicators disaggregated by gender;

    99.  Notes that better data and data analysis are key to evidence-based decision-making and the swift identification of small changes in water quality that could present a threat to bodies of water, together with the evaluation of best practice and identification of the most cost-effective and impactful measures;

    100.  Stresses that improved, reliable and interoperable data on water supply, demand, distribution, accessibility and use are needed and that data points need to be established; urges the Commission and the Member States to enhance data collection and improve data interoperability across all levels to support the implementation of current water legislation, as well as to facilitate circular economy and water-smart industrial symbiosis strategies; highlights the fact that data and AI could be used in modelling water and energy consumption as well as reuse and recycling capacities;

    101.  Calls on the Commission to better recognise the fundamental role of the water sector in bolstering EU competiveness by fostering research and innovation and promoting entrepreneurship and talent; emphasises, in this regard, the importance of ramping up innovation in the water sector; points out that the European Innovation Centre for Industrial Transformation and Emissions, created as part of Directive 2010/75/EU, could play a role in this regard, as it evaluates the environmental performance of industrial technologies and gathers information on innovative industrial environmental techniques; points, further, to existing partnerships like the Water4All Partnership, a funding programme for scientific research;

    102.  Believes that there is a need to build and nurture multi-stakeholder platforms to promote innovation uptake at all levels, local and national; recommends that these platforms involve a wide range of participants – the public and private sectors, and civil society associations – to build a coalition of partners to bring about change; supports the promotion of knowledge sharing on how digital water technologies can support the implementation of existing EU water legislation, as well as capacity building at local, regional and national levels; calls on the Commission and the Members States to expand digital skills, and research and development (R&D) programmes targeting water, including through collaboration with universities, research centres and SMEs;

    103.  Acknowledges the critical role of data centres in the digital economy; notes with concern that the rapid expansion of the technology could lead to a substantial increase in AI’s demand for water resources associated with their operations, which could undermine the environmental benefits that AI promises to deliver, such as resource optimisation and carbon emission reductions, and stresses the need to integrate water efficiency measures in their design and operation; urges the Commission to address the use of water resources by information and communications technologies (ICT) and, in particular, by AI and data centres in its EWRS, in particular by encouraging data centres to reuse treated water and to promote the design of more efficient chips and components to reduce the need for cooling; recommends that the Member States prioritise water resilience strategies that address the specific challenges posed by data centres to ensure the sustainability of both the digital and the environmental agendas;

    104.  Recalls that seawater desalination is the process of removing salt from sea or brackish water to make it useable for a range of ‘fit for use’ purposes, including drinking, and that it is thus an important technological solution for people’s livelihoods; notes that, at the same time, desalination is an energy-intensive process and should ideally be done using renewable energy, whenever possible, in order to minimise environmental impacts; reiterates that desalination produces a by-product, brine (a concentrated salt solution), that must be properly disposed of to avoid adverse impacts on the marine environment; considers, therefore, that desalination based on reverse osmosis or thermal technologies should be applied, if other more environmentally sustainable options are not available or cannot be implemented, particularly in remote areas and islands; highlights, in this regard, the ongoing work on new technological solutions, such as microbial desalination cells, offering an environmentally sustainable and innovative alternative to traditional desalination methods, particularly to provide clean water and wastewater treatment to small, isolated locations without electricity;

    105.  Stresses the need for increased funding and R&D into technologies such as innovative desalination techniques in order to increase the efficiency, sustainability and the scaling up of such technologies; calls for research into the possibilities of using such technologies in agriculture to diversify the water supply points and therefore decrease the vulnerability of the sector to water stress;

    106.  Notes that in the last decade, there have been many scientific breakthroughs for making water treatment smarter and more circular, with these solutions offering opportunities for using digital solutions, AI and remote sensing to use water more efficiently and by reusing treated wastewater for irrigation and recovering energy and nutrients from wastewater;

    107.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to address the regulatory obstacles within the single market to facilitate the development, scaling-up, and placing on the market of innovative biotechnology and biomanufacturing solutions and the promotion of cleaner manufacturing and circularity;

    108.  Calls for the funding, development and authorisation of innovative solutions for crop protection and fertilisation, including biological control agents and active substances with lower impact on the environment, which are needed for a just transition to more sustainable agricultural systems;

    109.  Calls for specific programmes to be established for the cleaning and conservation of river channels, ensuring adequate flow and reducing the accumulation of debris and sediment that can affect water storage and distribution capacity;

    Cross-border and international cooperation

    110.  Stresses the need for a comprehensive EWRS that fosters cross-border cooperation, more uniform data collection and reporting, sharing best practice between local, regional and national actors, ensuring sustainable water management and equitable resource distribution among the Member States, preventing water challenges such as scarcity and flood risk from being passed on to other Member States;

    111.  Emphasises that climate change represents a major threat to water resources and aquatic ecosystems; notes that floods and water scarcity compromise food and water security and the health of the general population, ultimately affecting social cohesion and stability; recognises that water resilience is crucial for preventing and addressing current and future health, food, energy and security crises; emphasises that water resilience promotes transboundary water cooperation, serving as a catalyst for peace and security, as countries are interconnected through shared rivers and groundwater resources;

    112.  Calls for increased cross-border cooperation between the Member States in the management of shared river basins and groundwater aquifers and in the effective collection and sharing of data on water quality, pollution levels and water levels; recommends the establishment of regional cooperation centres to coordinate the implementation of joint water resilience strategies, taking into account the climate, social and economic challenges of each territory;

    113.  Calls for enhanced international cooperation, including at the level of river basins, to address the growing water crisis, ensure clean and high-quality water, promote sustainable water management and implement various innovative water technologies, including nature-based solutions; calls for the anchoring of cooperation across borders at operational, tactical and strategic levels;

    114.  Calls for the establishment of cross-border projects under Interreg and other EU funds to improve regional cooperation in the management of water resources, with a particular focus on ensuring the fair distribution of water between sectors and Member States;

    115.  Stresses the need to strengthen EU monitoring capacities through digitalisation and modern technologies, including satellite surveillance and real-time pollution tracking, which are essential for preventing and combating cross-border pollution;

    116.  Urges the Commission to implement a specific diplomatic role dedicated to resolving water-related conflicts, promoting water cooperation and protecting water sources and systems, particularly during armed conflicts and in transboundary contexts;

    117.  Urges the EU to lead international efforts to protect and restore water ecosystems in line with the SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation;

    o
    o   o

    118.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

    (1) OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1119/oj.
    (2) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/60/oj.
    (3) OJ L 372, 27.12.2006, p. 19, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2006/118/oj.
    (4) OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 84, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/105/oj.
    (5) OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2007/60/oj.
    (6) OJ L 435, 23.12.2020, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2020/2184/oj.
    (7) OJ L 177, 5.6.2020, p. 32, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/741/oj.
    (8) OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/56/oj.
    (9) OJ L, 2024/3019, 12.12.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/3019/oj.
    (10) OJ L, 2024/1785, 15.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1785/oj.
    (11) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1991/676/oj.
    (12) OJ L, 2024/1991, 29.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1991/oj.
    (13) OJ L 333, 27.12.2022, p. 164, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2557/oj.
    (14) OJ L 333, 27.12.2022, p. 80, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2555/oj.
    (15) OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 71, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/128/oj.
    (16) OJ L 435, 6.12.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj.
    (17) OJ L, 2024/3190, 31.12.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/3190/oj.
    (18) OJ C 132, 14.4.2023, p. 54.
    (19) OJ C, C/2024/7216, 10.12.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7216/oj.
    (20) OJ C 132, 14.4.2023, p. 106.
    (21) OJ C 232, 16.6.2021, p. 28.
    (22) OJ C, C/2025/808, 11.2.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/808/oj.
    (23) OJ C 445, 29.10.2021, p. 126.
    (24) OJ C 316, 22.9.2017, p. 99.
    (25) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2024)0358.
    (26) World Meteorological Organization, 2021 State of Climate Services – Water, WMO-No 1278, WMO, Geneva, 2021.
    (27) European Environment Agency, Water resources across Europe – confronting water scarcity and drought, EEA Report 2/2009.
    (28) EEA Report 07/2024.
    (29) WWF, High Cost of Cheap Water, WWF, Gland, 2021.
    (30) EEA Report 07/2024.
    (31) European Commission, Attitudes of Europeans towards the environment, Special Eurobarometer 550, May 2024.
    (32) European Commission: Directorate-General for Environment, et al., Implementation of water balances in the EU – Final report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2024.
    (33) Disclosure Insight Action (CDP) and Planet Tracker, High and Dry. How Water Issues Are Stranding Assets, 2022.
    (34) EEA Report 07/2024.
    (35) European Environment Agency, ‘Water abstraction by economic sector in the 27 EU Member States, 2000-2022’, European Environment Agency website, 5 December 2024, https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/water-abstraction-by-source-and/water-abstraction-by-economic?activeTab=8a280073-bf94-4717-b3e2-1374b57ca99d.
    (36) Eurostat, ‘Archive: Water use in industry’, Eurostat website, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:Water_use_in_industry&oldid=196132#Further_Eurostat_information.
    (37) EEA Report 07/2024.
    (38) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Water accounting and auditing, A sourcebook, FAO Water Reports 43, FAO, Rome, 2016.
    (39) European Investment Bank, Wastewater as a resource, EIB, 2022.
    (40) European Commission: Directorate-General for Environment, ‘Water reuse: New EU rules to improve access to safe irrigation’, European Commission website, 26 June 2023, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/water-reuse-new-eu-rules-improve-access-safe-irrigation-2023-06-26_en.
    (41) European Commission: Directorate-General for Environment, ‘Zero pollution: Improved quality and access to drinking water’, European Commission website, 12 January 2023, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/improved-quality-and-access-drinking-water-all-europeans-2023-01-12_en.
    (42) EEA Report 07/2024.
    (43) Ibid.
    (44) Ibid.
    (45) Ibid.
    (46) Ibid.
    (47) Ibid.
    (48) European Environment Agency, ‘Industrial pollutant releases to water in Europe’, European Environment Agency website, 30 May 2024, https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/industrial-pollutant-releases-to-water.
    (49) Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/75/oj).
    (50) European Commission ‘Nitrates’, European Commission website, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/water/nitrates_en#implementation.
    (51) European Environment Agency, ‘Public exposure to widely used Bisphenol A exceeds acceptable health safety levels’, European Environment Agency website, 14 September 2023, https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/newsroom/news/public-exposure-to-bisphenol-a.
    (52) European Environment Agency, European Climate Risk Assessment, EEA Report 01/2024.
    (53) Cammalleri, C. et al., Global warming and drought impacts in the EU, JRC Technical Report , Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
    (54) EEA Report 07/2024.
    (55) Feyen, L. et al., Climate change impacts and adaptation in Europe, JRC PESETA IV final report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
    (56) European Environment AgencyEuropean Climate Risk Assessment, EEA Report 01/2024.
    (57) United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, GAR Special Report on Drought 2021, Geneva, UNDRR, 2021.
    (58) Council conclusions of 14 October 2024 on Desertification, Land Degradation and Drought.
    (59) EEA Report 07/2024.
    (60) Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directives 2008/99/EC and 2009/123/EC (OJ L, 2024/1203, 30.4.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1203/oj).
    (61) European Patent Office, Innovation in water-related technologies, EPO, Munich 2024.
    (62) EEA Report 07/2024.
    (63) European Commission JRC Science for Policy Report, ‘Technical proposals for the safe use of processed manure above the threshold established for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones by the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)’, 2020.
    (64) Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC (OJ L 338, 13.11.2004, p. 4, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/1935/oj).
    (65) European Environment Agency,‘Industrial pollutant releases to water in Europe, European Environment Agency website, 30 May 2024, https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/industrial-pollutant-releases-to-water.
    (66) United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Build Back Better in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction, UNISDR, Geneva, 2019.
    (67) European Commission: Directorate-General for Environment et al. Stock-taking analysis and outlook of drought policies, planning and management in EU Member States – Final Report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Text adopted – A revamped long-term budget for the Union in a changing world – P10_TA(2025)0090 – Wednesday, 7 May 2025 – Strasbourg

    Source: European Parliament

    The European Parliament,

    –  having regard to Articles 311, 312, 323 and 324 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

    –  having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 of 17 December 2020 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027(1) and to the joint declarations agreed between Parliament, the Council and the Commission in this context and the related unilateral declarations,

    –  having regard to Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 of 14 December 2020 on the system of own resources of the European Union and repealing Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom(2),

    –  having regard to the amended Commission proposal of 23 June 2023 for a Council decision amending Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 on the system of own resources of the European Union (COM(2023)0331),

    –  having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2020 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management, as well as on new own resources, including a roadmap towards the introduction of new own resources(3) (the IIA),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast)(4) (the Financial Regulation),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget(5) (the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation),

    –  having regard to its position of 27 February 2024 on the draft Council regulation amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027(6),

    –  having regard to its resolution of 10 May 2023 on own resources: a new start for EU finances, a new start for Europe(7),

    –  having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2022 on upscaling the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework: a resilient EU budget fit for new challenges(8),

    –  having regard to its position of 16 December 2020 on the draft Council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027(9),

    –  having regard to the Interinstitutional Proclamation on the European Pillar of Social Rights of 13 December 2017(10) and to the Commission Action Plan of 4 March 2021 on the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights (COM(2021)0102),

    –  having regard to the Agreement adopted at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 15) in Montreal on 19 December 2022 (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework),

    –  having regard to the Agreement adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 21) in Paris on 12 December 2015 (the Paris Agreement),

    –  having regard to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals,

    –  having regard to the report of 30 October 2024 by Sauli Niinistö entitled ‘Safer together – strengthening Europe’s civilian and military preparedness and readiness’ (the Niinistö report),

    –  having regard to the report of 9 September 2024 by Mario Draghi entitled ‘The future of European competitiveness’ (the Draghi report),

    –  having regard to the report of 4 September 2024 of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture entitled ‘A shared prospect for farming and food in Europe’,

    –  having regard to the report of 17 April 2024 by Enrico Letta entitled ‘Much more than a market – speed, security, solidarity: empowering the Single Market to deliver a sustainable future and prosperity for all EU Citizens’ (the Letta report),

    –  having regard to the report of 20 February 2024 of the High-Level Group on the Future of Cohesion Policy entitled ‘Forging a sustainable future together – cohesion for a competitive and inclusive Europe’,

    –  having regard to the Budapest Declaration on the New European Competitiveness Deal,

    –  having regard to the joint communication of 26 March 2025 entitled ‘European Preparedness Union Strategy’ (JOIN(2025)0130),

    –  having regard to the joint white paper of 19 March 2025 entitled ‘European Defence Readiness 2030’ (JOIN(2025)0120),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 7 March 2025 entitled ‘A Roadmap for Women’s Rights’ (COM(2025)0097),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 26 February 2025 entitled ‘The Clean Industrial Deal: a joint roadmap for competitiveness and decarbonisation’ (COM(2025)0085),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 19 February 2025 entitled ‘A Vision for Agriculture and Food’ (COM(2025)0075),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 11 February 2025 entitled ‘The road to the next multiannual financial framework’ (COM(2025)0046),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 29 January 2025 entitled ‘A Competitiveness Compass for the EU’ (COM(2025)0030),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 9 December 2021 entitled ‘Building an economy that works for people: an action plan for the social economy’ (COM(2021)0778),

    –  having regard to the European Council conclusions of 20 March 2025, 6 March 2025 and 19 December 2024,

    –  having regard to the political guidelines of 18 July 2024 for the next European Commission 2024-2029,

    –  having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 20 November 2024 entitled ‘EU budget and place-based policies: proposals for new design and delivery mechanisms in the MFF post-2027’(11),

    –  having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

    –  having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Development, the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Regional Development, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on Culture and Education, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality,

    –  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A10-0076/2025),

    A.  whereas, under Article 311 TFEU, the Union is required to provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies;

    B.  whereas the Union budget is primarily an investment tool that can achieve economies of scale unattainable at Member State level and support European public goods, in particular through cross-border projects; whereas all spending through the Union budget must provide European added value and deliver discernible net benefits compared to spending at national or sub-national level, leading to real and lasting results;

    C.  whereas spending through the Union budget, if effectively targeted, aligned with the Union’s political priorities and better coordinated with spending at national level, helps to avoid fragmentation in the single market, promote upwards convergence, decrease inequalities and boost the overall impact of public investment; whereas public investment is essential as a catalyst for private investment in sectors where the market alone cannot drive the required investment;

    D.  whereas the NextGenerationEU recovery instrument (NGEU) established in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic enabled significant additional investment capacity of EUR 750 billion in 2018 prices – beyond the Union budget, which amounts to 1,1 % of the EU-27’s gross national income (GNI) – prompting a swift recovery and return to growth and supporting the green and digital transitions; whereas NGEU will not be in place post-2027;

    E.  whereas in 2022 Member States spent an average of 1,4 % of gross domestic product (GDP) on State aid – significantly more than their contribution to the Union budget – with over half of the State aid unrelated to crises;

    F.  whereas the Union budget, bolstered by NGEU and loans through the SURE scheme, has been instrumental in alleviating the economic and social impact of the COVID-19 crisis and in responding to the effects of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; whereas the Union budget remains ill-equipped, in terms of size, structure and rules, to fully play its role in adjusting to evolving spending needs, addressing shocks and responding to crises and giving practical effect to the principle of solidarity, and to enable the Union to fulfil its objectives as established under the Treaties;

    G.  whereas people rightly expect more from the Union and its budget, including the capacity to respond quickly and effectively to evolving needs and to provide them with the necessary support, especially in times of crisis;

    H.  whereas, since the adoption of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF), the political, economic and social context has changed beyond recognition, compounding underlying structural challenges for the Union and leading to a substantial revision of the MFF in 2024;

    I.  whereas the context in which the Commission will prepare its proposals for the post-2027 MFF is every bit as challenging, with the established global and geopolitical order changing quickly and radically, the return of large-scale warfare in the Union’s immediate neighbourhood, a highly challenging economic and social backdrop and the worsening climate and biodiversity crisis; whereas, as the Commission has made clear, the status quo is not an option and the Union budget will need to change accordingly;

    J.  whereas the US administration has decided to retreat from the country’s post-war global role in guaranteeing peace and security, in leading on global governance in the rules-based, multilateral international order and in providing essential development and humanitarian aid to those most in need around the world; whereas the Union will therefore have to step up to fill part of the void the US appears set to leave, placing additional demands on the budget;

    K.  whereas the Union has committed to take all the steps needed to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 at the latest and to protect nature and reverse biodiversity loss; whereas delivering on the policy framework put in place to achieve this objective will require substantial investment; whereas the Union budget will have to play a key role in providing and incentivising that investment;

    L.  whereas, in order to compensate for the budget’s shortcomings, there have been numerous workaround solutions that make the budget more opaque, leaving the public in the dark about the real volume of Union spending, undermining the longer-term predictability of investment the budget is designed to provide and undercutting not only the principle of budget unity, but also Parliament’s role as a legislator and budgetary and discharge authority and in holding the executive to account;

    M.  whereas the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities; whereas breaches of those values undermine the cohesion of the Union, erode the rights of Union citizens and weaken mutual trust among Member States;

    1.  Insists that, in a fast changing world where people rightly expect more from the Union and its budget and where the Union is confronted with a growing number of crises, the next MFF must be endowed with increased resources compared to the 2021-2027 period, moving away from the historically restrictive, self-imposed level of 1 % of GNI;

    2.  Underscores that the next MFF must focus on financing European public goods with discernible added value compared to national spending; highlights the need for enhanced synergies and better coordination between Union and national spending; emphasises that spending will have to address major challenges, such as the return of large-scale warfare in the Union’s immediate neighbourhood, a highly challenging economic and social backdrop, a competitiveness gap and the worsening climate and biodiversity crisis;

    3.  Considers that the ‘one national plan per Member State’ approach as envisaged by the Commission, with the Recovery and Resilience Facility model as a blueprint, cannot be the basis for shared management spending post-2027; underlines that the design of shared management spending under the next MFF must fully safeguard Parliament’s roles as legislator and budgetary and discharge authority and be designed and implemented through close collaboration with regional and local authorities and all relevant stakeholders;

    4.  Calls for the next MFF to continue support for economic, social and territorial cohesion in order to help bind the Union together, deepen the single market, promote convergence and reduce inequality, poverty and social exclusion;

    5.  Considers that the idea of an umbrella Competitiveness Fund merging existing programmes as envisaged by the Commission is not fit for purpose; stresses that the fund should instead be a new instrument taking advantage of a toolbox of funding based on lessons learned from InvestEU and the Innovation Fund and complementing existing, highly successful programmes;

    6.  Stresses that, in particular in the light of the US’s retreat from its role as a global guarantor of peace and security, there is a clear need to progress towards a genuine Defence Union, with the next MFF supporting a comprehensive security approach through an increase in investment; stresses that defence spending cannot come at the expense of nor lead to a reduction in long-term investment in the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the Union;

    7.  Calls for genuine simplification for final beneficiaries by avoiding programmes with overlapping objectives, diverging eligibility criteria and different rules governing horizontal provisions; underlines that simplification cannot mean more leeway for the Commission without the necessary checks and balances and must therefore be achieved with full respect for the institutional balance provided for in the Treaties;

    8.  Insists on enhanced in-built crisis response capacity in the next MFF and sufficient margins under each heading; stresses that, alongside predictability for investment, spending programmes should retain a substantial in-built flexibility reserve, with allocation to specific policy objectives to be decided by the budgetary authority; underlines that flexibility for humanitarian aid should be ring-fenced; considers that the post-2027 MFF should include two special instruments – one dedicated to ensuring solidarity in the event of natural disasters and one for general-purpose crisis response;

    9.  Underlines that compliance with Union values and fundamental rights is an essential pre-requisite to access EU funds; insists that the Union budget be protected against misuse, fraud and breaches of the principle of the rule of law and calls for a stronger link between the rule of law and the Union budget post-2027;

    10.  Underlines that the repayment of NGEU borrowing must not endanger the financing of EU policies and priorities; stresses, therefore, that all costs related to borrowing backed by the Union budget or the budgetary headroom be treated distinctly from appropriations for EU programmes within the future MFF architecture;

    11.  Calls on the Council to adopt new own resources as a matter of urgency in order to enable sustainable repayment of NGEU borrowing; stresses that new genuine own resources, beyond the IIA, are essential for the Union’s higher spending needs; considers that all instruments and tools should be explored in order to provide the Union with the necessary resources, and considers, in this respect, that joint borrowing presents a viable option to ensure that the Union has sufficient resources to respond to acute Union-wide crises, such as the ongoing crisis in the area of security and defence;

    12.  Stands ready to work constructively with the Council and Commission to deliver a long-term budget that addresses the Union’s needs; highlights that the post-2027 MFF is being constructed in a far from ‘business as usual’ context and takes seriously its institutional role as enshrined in the Treaties; insists that it will only approve a long-term budget that is fit for purpose for the Union in a changing world and calls for swift adoption of the MFF to enable timely implementation of spending programmes from 1 January 2028;

    A long-term budget with a renewed spending focus

    13.  Considers that, in view of the structural challenges facing the Union, the post-2027 MFF should adjust its spending focus to ensure that the Union can meet its strategic policy aims as detailed below;

    Competitiveness, strategic autonomy, social, economic and territorial cohesion and resilience

    14.  Is convinced that boosting competitiveness, decarbonising the economy and enhancing the Union’s innovation capacity are central priorities for the post-2027 MFF and are vital to ensure long-term, sustainable and inclusive growth and a thriving, more resilient economy and society;

    15.  Considers that the Union must develop a competitiveness framework in line with its own values and political aims and that competitiveness must foster not only economic growth, but also social, economic and territorial cohesion and environmental sustainability as underlined in both the Draghi and Letta reports;

    16.  Underlines that, as spelt out in the Letta and Draghi reports, the European economy and social model are under intense strain, with the productivity, competitiveness and skills gap having knock-on effects on the quality of jobs and on living standards for Europeans already grappling with high housing, energy and food prices; is concerned that a lack of job opportunities and high costs of living increase the risk of a brain drain away from Europe;

    17.  Points out that Draghi puts the annual investment gap with respect to innovation and infrastructure at EUR 750-800 billion per year between 2025 and 2030; underlines that the Union budget must play a vital role but it cannot cover that shortfall alone, and that the bulk of the effort will have to come from the private sector – points to the need to exploit synergies between public and private investment, in particular by simplifying and harmonising the EU investment architecture;

    18.  Stresses that the Union budget must be carefully coordinated with national spending, so as to ensure complementarity, and must be designed such that it can de-risk, mobilise and leverage private investment effectively, enabling start-ups and SMEs to access funds more readily; calls, therefore, for programmes such as InvestEU, which ensures additionality and follows a market-based, demand-driven approach, to be significantly reinforced in the next MFF; considers that financial instruments and budgetary guarantees are an effective use of resources to achieve critical Union policy goals and calls for them to be further simplified;

    19.  Insists that more must be done to maximise the potential of the role of the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group – together with other international and national financial institutions – in lending and de-risking in strategic policy areas, such as climate and, latterly, security and defence projects; calls for an increased risk appetite and ambition from the EIB Group to crowd in investment, based on a strong capital position, and for a reinforced investment partnership to ensure that every euro spent at Union level is used in the most effective manner;

    20.  Emphasises that funding for research and innovation, including support for basic research, should be significantly increased, should be focused on the Union’s strategic priorities, should continue to be determined by the principle of excellence and should remain merit-based; considers that there should be sufficient resources across the MFF and at national level to fund all high-quality projects throughout the innovation cycle and to achieve the 3 % GDP target for research and development spending by 2030;

    21.  Stresses that the next MFF, building on the current Connecting Europe Facility, should include much greater, directly managed funding for energy, transport and digital infrastructure, with priority given to cross-border connections and national links with European added value; considers that such infrastructure is an absolute precondition for a successful deepening of the single market and for increasing the Union’s resilience in a changing geopolitical order;

    22.  Points out that a secure and robust space sector is critical for the Union’s autonomy and sovereignty and therefore needs sustained investment;

    23.  Underlines that a more competitive, productive and socially inclusive economy helps to generate high-quality, well-paid jobs, thus enhancing people’s standard of living; emphasises that, through programmes such as the European Social Fund+ and Erasmus+, the Union budget can play an important role in supporting education and training systems, enhancing social inclusion, boosting workforce adaptability through reskilling and upskilling, and thus preparing people for employment in a modern economy;

    24.  Insists that the Union budget should continue to support important economic and job-creating sectors where the Union is already a world leader, such as tourism and the cultural and creative sectors; underscores the need for dedicated funding for tourism, including to implement the EU Strategy for Sustainable Tourism, in the Union budget post-2027; points to the importance of Creative Europe in contributing to Europe’s diversity and competitiveness and in supporting vibrant societies;

    25.  Stresses that, in order to compete with other major global players, the European economy must also become more competitive and resilient on the supply side by investing more in the Union’s open strategic autonomy through enhanced industrial policy and a focus on strategic sectors, resource-efficiency and critical technologies to reduce dependence on third countries;

    26.  Considers that, in light of the above, the idea of an umbrella Competitiveness Fund merging existing programmes as envisaged by the Commission is not fit for purpose; stresses that the fund should instead be a new instrument taking advantage of a toolbox of funding based on lessons learned from InvestEU and the Innovation Fund; recalls that, under Article 182 TFEU, the Union is required to adopt a framework programme for research;

    27.  Notes that, in the Commission communication on the competitiveness compass, the Commission argues that a new competitiveness coordination tool should be established in order to better align industrial and research policies and investment between EU and national level; notes that the proposed new tool is envisaged as part of a ‘new, lean steering mechanism’ designed ‘to reinforce the link between overall policy coordination and the EU budget’; insists that Parliament must play a full decision-making role in both mechanisms;

    28.  Emphasises that food security is a vital component of strategic autonomy and that the next MFF must continue to support the competitiveness and resilience of the Union’s farming and fisheries sectors, including small-scale and young farmers and fishers, and help the sectors to better protect the climate and biodiversity, as well as the seas and oceans; highlights that a modern and simplified common agricultural policy is crucial for increasing productivity through technical progress, ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers, guaranteeing food security and the production of safe, high-quality and affordable food for Europeans, fostering generational renewal and ensuring the viability of rural areas;

    29.  Points out that the farming sector is particularly vulnerable to inflationary shocks which affect farmers’ purchasing power; calls for an increased and dedicated budget for the CAP in the next MFF, safeguarding it from possible cuts, in order to maintain its integrity and commonality, as well as the coherence and interconnection between its first and second pillar, and therefore opposes the idea of integrating the CAP into a single fund for each Member State; calls for additional dedicated funding sources to be explored where appropriate, including outside of the CAP, in order to cope with natural disasters and provide incentives to farmers and foresters to contribute to climate change mitigation, biodiversity recovery and nature protection, without measures causing a regression in EU agricultural production;

    30.  Stresses that the new global challenges facing EU farmers, including the present geopolitical situation, climate change and rising input prices, require sound financial allocation in the next CAP; emphasises that, in order to address these challenges, taking into account the lessons learned from the COVID-19 crisis, and to avoid reductions to farmers’ support, the CAP urgently needs an increased budget in the next MFF that is indexed to inflation through annual re-evaluation; underlines, in that respect, that direct payments in the current form generate clear EU added value and should continue to strengthen income security, production and protection against price volatility, better targeting persons actively engaged in agricultural production and the provision of public goods, while respecting realistic and balanced EU environmental and social standards; calls for a fair and efficient distribution of CAP support within and among the Member States; calls for the continuation and reinforcement of measures that maintain production in vulnerable areas and guarantee the viability of rural communities and the adequacy of public infrastructure, specifically regarding digitalisation and particularly through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and the renewed involvement of local and regional authorities in the management of such measures; stresses the need to increase and reform the agricultural reserve in order to respond effectively and rapidly to future crises that the European agricultural sector will have to deal with, and to establish new tools for managing natural, market and sanitary risks, such as an EU reinsurance scheme to better mitigate the effects of future crises and provide greater stability for farmers; emphasises that specific solutions must be found for the farmers in eastern Europe who are most affected by the cascade effects of Russia’s war against Ukraine, such as high input prices, inflation and market disturbances; urges the Commission to continue to set up the necessary financial and legal framework for the food supply chain in order to strengthen the position of farmers and better combat unfair trading practices; calls on the Commission to support EU farmers by promoting agri-food products inside and outside the Union through a dynamic and stronger EU promotion policy; regrets the funding cuts made to the programme on the promotion of agricultural products during the review of the current MFF; emphasises that the next MFF must include dedicated funds for agri-tourism, female entrepreneurship, vocational training and technological innovation in agriculture;

    31.  Recalls that social, economic and territorial cohesion is a cornerstone of European integration and is vital in binding the Union together and deepening the single market; reaffirms, in that respect, the importance of the convergence process; underlines that a modernised cohesion policy must follow a decentralised, place-based, multilevel governance approach and be built around the shared management and partnership principle, fully involving local and regional authorities and relevant stakeholders, ensuring that resources are directed where they are most needed to reduce regional disparities;

    32.  Stresses that cohesion policy funding must tackle the key challenges the Union faces, such as demographic change and depopulation, and target the regions and people most in need; calls, furthermore, for enhanced access to EU funding for cities, regions and urban authorities; recalls that, under Article 349 TFEU, the Union is required to put in place specific measures for the outermost regions and stresses, therefore, the need for continued, targeted support for these regions in the next MFF, including via a reinforced programme of options specifically relating to remoteness and insularity (POSEI);

    33.  Recalls the importance of the social dimension of the European Union and of promoting the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, its Action Plan and headline targets; emphasises that the Union budget should, therefore, play a pivotal role in reducing inequality, poverty and social exclusion, including by supporting children, families and vulnerable groups; recalls that around 20 million children in the Union are at risk of poverty and social exclusion; stresses that addressing child poverty across the Union requires appropriately funded, comprehensive and integrated measures, together with the efficient implementation of the European Child Guarantee at national level; emphasises that Parliament has consistently requested a dedicated budget within the ESF+ to support the Child Guarantee as a central pillar of the EU anti-poverty strategy;

    34.  Highlights, in this regard, the EU-wide housing crisis affecting millions of families and young people; stresses the need for enhanced support for housing through the Union budget, in particular via cohesion policy, and through other funding sources, such as the EIB Group and national promotional banks; acknowledges that, while Union financing cannot solve the housing crisis alone, it can play a crucial role in financing urgent measures and complementing broader Union and national efforts to improve housing affordability and enhance energy efficiency of the housing stock;

    35.  Points out that Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has had substantial economic and social consequences, in particular in Member States bordering Russia and Belarus; insists that the next MFF provide support to these regions;

    The green and digital transitions

    36.  Highlights that the green and digital transitions are inextricably linked to competitiveness, the modernisation of the economy and the resilience of society and act as catalysts for a future-oriented and resource-efficient economy; insists therefore, that the post-2027 MFF must continue to support and to further accelerate the twin transitions;

    37.  Recalls that the Union budget is an essential contributor to achieving climate neutrality by 2050, including through support for the 2030 and 2040 targets; underlines that the transition will require a decarbonisation of the economy, in particular through the deployment of clean technologies, improved energy and transport infrastructure and more energy-efficient housing; notes that the Commission estimates additional investment needs to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 at 1,5 % of GDP per year compared to the decade 2011-2020 and that, while the Union budget alone cannot cover the gap, it must remain a vital contributor; calls, therefore, for increased directly managed support for environment and biodiversity protection and climate action building on the current LIFE programme;

    38.  Underlines that industry will be central in the transition to net zero and the establishment of the Energy Union, and that support will be needed in helping some industrial sectors and their workers to adapt; stresses the importance of a just transition that must leave no one behind, requiring, inter alia, investment in regions that are heavily fossil-fuel dependent and increased support for vulnerable households, in particular through the Just Transition Mechanism and the Social Climate Fund;

    39.  Points to the profound technological shift under way, with technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum both creating opportunities, in terms of the Union’s economic potential and global leadership and improvements to citizens’ lives, and posing reliability, ethical and sovereignty challenges; stresses that the next MFF must support research into, and the development and safe application of digital technologies and help people to hone the knowledge and skills they need to work with and use them;

    Security, defence and preparedness

    40.  Recalls that peace and security are the foundation for the Union’s prosperity, social model and competitiveness, and a vital pillar of the Union’s geopolitical standing; stresses that the next MFF must support a comprehensive security approach by investing significantly more in safeguarding the Union against the myriad threats it faces;

    41.  Underlines that, as the Niinistö report makes clear, multiple threats are combining to heighten instability and increase the Union’s vulnerability, chief among them the fragmenting global order, the security threat posed by Russia and Belarus, growing tensions globally, hostile international actors, the globalisation of criminal networks, hybrid campaigns – which include cyberattacks, foreign information manipulation, disinformation and interference and the instrumentalisation of migration – increasingly frequent and intense extreme weather events as a result of climate change, and health threats;

    42.  Points out that the Union has played a vital role in achieving lasting peace on its territory and must continue to do so by adjusting to the reality of war on its doorstep and the need to vastly boost defence infrastructure, capabilities and readiness, including through the Union budget, going far beyond the current allocation of less than 2 % of the MFF;

    43.  Notes that European defence capabilities suffer from decades of under-investment and that, according to the Commission, the defence spending gap currently stands at EUR 500 billion for the next decade; underlines that the Union budget alone cannot fill the gap, but has an important role to play, in conjunction with national budgets and with a focus on clear EU added value; considers that the Union budget and lending through the EIB Group can help incentivise investment in defence; stresses that defence spending must not come at the expense of social and environmental spending, nor must it lead to a reduction in funding for long-standing Union policies that have proved their worth over time;

    44.  Underlines the merits of the defence programmes and instruments put in place during the current MFF, which have enhanced joint research, production and procurement in the field of defence, providing a valuable foundation on which to build further Union policy and investment;

    45.  Emphasises that, given the geopolitical situation, there is a clear need to act and to progress towards a genuine Defence Union, in coordination with NATO and in full alignment with the neutrality commitments of individual Member States; concurs, in that regard, with the Commission’s analysis that the next MFF must provide a comprehensive and robust framework in support of EU defence;

    46.  Underscores the importance of a competitive and resilient European defence technological and industrial base; considers that enhanced joint EU-level investment in defence in the next MFF backed up by a clear and transparent governance structure can help to avoid duplication, generate economies of scale, and thus significant savings for Member States, reduce fragmentation and ensure the interoperability of equipment and systems; underscores the importance of technology in modern defence systems and therefore of investing in research, cyber-defence and cybersecurity and in dual-use products; points to the need to direct support towards the defence industry within the Union, thus strengthening strategic autonomy, creating quality high-skilled jobs, driving innovation and creating cross-border opportunities for EU businesses, including SMEs;

    47.  Points to the importance of increasing support in the budget for military mobility, which upgrades infrastructure for dual-use military and civilian purposes, enabling the large-scale movement of military equipment and personnel at short notice and thus contributing to the Union’s defence capabilities and collective security; highlights, in that regard, the importance of financing for the trans-European transport networks to enable their adaptation for dual-use purposes;

    48.  Emphasises that the Union needs to ramp up funding for preparedness across the board; is alarmed by the growing impact of natural disasters, which are often the result of climate change and are therefore likely to occur with greater frequency and intensity in the future; points out that, according to the 2024 European Climate Risk Assessment Report, cumulated economic losses from natural disasters could reach about 1,4 % of Union GDP;

    49.  Underlines, therefore, that, in addition to efforts to mitigate climate change through the green transition, significant investment is required to adapt to climate change, in particular to prevent and reduce the impact of natural disasters and severe weather events; considers that support for this purpose, such as through the current Union Civil Protection Mechanism, must be significantly increased in the next MFF and made available quickly to local and regional authorities, which are often on the frontline;

    50.  Emphasises that reconstruction and recovery measures after natural disasters must be based on the ‘build back better’ approach and prioritise nature-based solutions; stresses the importance of sustainable water management and security and hydric resilience as part of the Union’s overall preparedness strategy;

    51.  Recalls that the COVID-19 pandemic wreaked economic and social havoc globally and that a key lesson from the experience is that there is a need to prioritise investment in prevention of, preparedness for and response to health threats, in medical research and disease prevention, in access to critical medicines, in healthcare infrastructure, in physical and mental health and in the resilience and accessibility of public health systems in the Union; recalls that strategic autonomy in health is key to ensuring the Union’s preparedness in this area;

    52.  Considers that the next MFF must build on the work done in the current programming period by ensuring that the necessary investment is in place to build a genuine European Health Union that delivers for all citizens;

    53.  Underlines that, with technological developments, it has become easier for malicious and opportunistic foreign actors to spread disinformation, encourage online hate speech, interfere in elections and mount cyberattacks against the Union’s interests; insists that the next MFF must invest in enhanced cybersecurity capabilities and equip the Union to counter hybrid warfare in its various guises;

    54.  Stresses that a free, independent and pluralistic media is a fundamental component of Europe’s resilience, safeguarding not only the free flow of information but also a democratic mindset, critical thinking and informed decision-making; points to the importance of investment in independent and investigative journalism, fact-checking initiatives, digital and media literacy and critical thinking to safeguard against disinformation, foreign information manipulation and electoral interference as part of the European Democracy Shield initiative and therefore to guarantee democratic resilience; underscores the need for continued Union budget support for initiatives in these areas;

    55.  Underscores the importance of continued funding, in the next MFF, for effective protection of the EU’s external borders; underlines the need to counter transnational criminal networks and better protect victims of trafficking networks, and to strengthen resilience and response capabilities to address hybrid attacks and the instrumentalisation of migration, by third countries or hostile non-state actors; highlights, in particular, the need for support to frontline Member States for the purposes of securing the external borders of the EU;

    56.  Underlines that the EU’s resilience and preparedness are inextricably linked to those of its regional and global partners; emphasises that strengthening partners’ capacity to prevent, withstand and effectively respond to extreme weather events, health crises, hybrid campaigns, cyberattacks or armed conflict also lowers the risk of spill-over effects for Europe;

    External action and enlargement

    57.  Insists that, in a context of heightened global instability, the Union must continue to engage constructively with third countries and support peace, and conflict prevention, stability, prosperity, security, human rights, the rule of law, equality, democracy and sustainable development globally, in line with its global responsibility values and international commitments;

    58.  Regrets the fact that external action in the current MFF has been underfunded, leading to significant recourse to special instruments and substantial reinforcements in the mid-term revision; notes, in particular, that humanitarian aid funding has been woefully inadequate, prompting routine use of the Emergency Aid Reserve;

    59.  Underlines that the US’s retreat from its post-war global role in guaranteeing peace, security and democracy, in leading on global governance in the rules-based, multilateral international order and in providing essential development and humanitarian aid to those most in need around the world will leave an enormous gap and that the Union has a responsibility and overwhelming strategic interest in helping to fill that gap; calls on the Commission to address the consequences of the US’s retreat at the latest in its proposal for the post-2027 MFF;

    60.  Stresses that the next MFF must continue to tackle the most pressing global challenges, from fighting climate change, to providing relief in the event of natural disasters, preventing and addressing violent conflict and guaranteeing global security, ensuring global food security, improving healthcare and education systems, reducing poverty and inequality, promoting democracy, human rights, the rule of law and social justice and boosting competitiveness and the security of global supply chains, in full compliance with the principle of policy coherence for development; emphasises, in particular, the need for support for the Union’s Southern and Eastern Neighbourhoods;

    61.  Underlines that, in particular in light of the drastic cuts to the USAID budget, the budget must uphold the Union’s role as the world’s leading provider of development aid and climate finance in line with the Union’s global obligations and commitments; recalls, in that regard, that the Union and its Member States have collectively committed to allocating 0,7 % of their GNI to official development assistance and that poverty alleviation must remain its primary objective; insists that the budget must continue to support the Union in its efforts to defend the rules-based international order, democracy, multilateralism, human rights and fundamental values;

    62.  Insists that, given the unprecedented scale of humanitarian crises, mounting global challenges and uncertainty of US assistance under the current administration, humanitarian aid funding must be significantly enhanced and that its use must remain solely needs-based and respect the principles of neutrality, independence and impartiality; emphasises that the needs-based nature of humanitarian aid requires ring-fenced funding delivered through a stand-alone spending programme, distinct from other external action financing; underscores, furthermore, that effective humanitarian aid provision is contingent on predictability through a sufficient annual baseline allocation;

    63.  Emphasises that humanitarian aid, by its very nature, requires substantial flexibility and response capacity; considers, therefore, that, in addition to an adequate baseline figure, humanitarian aid will require significant ring-fenced flexibility in its design to enable an effective response to the growing crises;

    64.  Emphasises that, in a context in which global actors are increasingly using trade interdependence as a means of economic coercion, the Union must bolster its capacity to protect and advance its own strategic interests, develop more robust tools to counter coercion and ensure genuine reciprocity in its partnerships; stresses that such an approach requires the strategic allocation of external financing so as to support, for example, economic, security and energy partnerships that align with the Union’s values and strategic interests;

    65.  Considers that enlargement represents an opportunity to strengthen the Union as a geopolitical power and that the next MFF is pivotal for preparing the Union for enlargement and the candidate countries for accession; recalls that the stability, security and democratic resilience of the candidate countries are inextricably connected to those of the EU and require sustained strategic investment, linked to reforms, to support their convergence with Union standards; underlines the important role that citizens and civil society organisations play in the process of enlargement;

    66.  Points to the need for strategically targeted support for pre-accession and for growth and investment; is of the view that post-2027 pre-accession assistance should be provided in the form of both grants and loans; believes, in that context, that the future framework should allow for innovative financing mechanisms, as well as lending to candidate countries backed by the budgetary headroom (the difference between the own resources and the MFF ceilings);

    67.  Stresses that financial support must be conditional on the implementation of reforms aligned with the Union acquis and policies and adherence to Union values; emphasises, in this regard, the need for a strong governance model that ensures parliamentary accountability, oversight and control and a strong, effective anti-fraud architecture;

    68.  Reiterates its full support for Ukrainians in their fight for freedom and democracy and deplores the terrible suffering and impact resulting from Russia’s unprovoked and unjustifiable war of aggression; welcomes the decision to grant Ukraine and the neighbouring Republic of Moldova candidate country status and insists on the need to deploy the necessary funds to support their accession processes;

    69.  Underlines that pre-accession support to Ukraine has to be distinct from and additional to financial assistance for macroeconomic stability, reconstruction and post-war recovery, where needs are far more substantial and require a concerted international effort, of which support through the Union budget should be an important part;

    70.  Is convinced that the existing mandatory revision clause in the event of enlargement should be maintained in the next framework and that national envelopes should not be affected; underlines that the next MFF will also have to put in place appropriate transitional and phasing-in measures for key spending areas, such as cohesion and agriculture, based on a careful assessment of the impacts on different sectors;

    Fundamental rights, Union values and the rule of law

    71.  Emphasises the importance of the Union budget and programmes like Erasmus+ and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values in promoting and protecting democracy and the Union’s values, fostering the Union’s common cultural heritage and European integration, enhancing citizen engagement, civic education and youth participation, safeguarding and promoting fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the rule of law; calls, in this regard, for increased funding for Erasmus+ in the next MFF; points to the importance of the independence of the justice system, the sound functioning of national institutions, de-oligarchisation, robust support for and, in line with article 11(2) TEU, an active dialogue with civil society, which is vital for fostering an active civic space, ensuring accountability and transparency and informing policymakers about best practices from the ground;

    72.  Highlights, in that connection, that the recast of the Financial Regulation requires the Commission and the Member States, in the implementation of the budget, to ensure compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to respect the values on which the Union is founded, which are enshrined in Article 2 TEU; expects the Commission to ensure that the proposals for the next MFF, including for the spending programmes, are aligned with the Financial Regulation recast;

    73.  Stresses that instability in neighbouring regions and beyond, poverty, underlying trends in economic development, demographic changes and climate change, continue to generate migration flows towards the Union, placing significant pressure on asylum and migration systems; underlines that the post-2027 MFF must support the full and swift implementation of the Union’s Asylum and Migration Pact and effective return and readmission policies, in line with fundamental rights and EU values, including the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility; underlines, moreover, that, in line with the Pact, the EU must pursue enhanced cooperation and mutually beneficial partnerships with third countries on migration, with adequate parliamentary scrutiny, and that such cooperation must abide by EU and international law;

    74.  Underlines that compliance with Union values and fundamental rights is an essential pre-requisite to access EU funds; highlights the importance of strong links between respect for the rule of law and access to EU funds under the current MFF; believes that the protection of the Union’s financial interests depends on respect for the rule of law at national level; welcomes, in particular, the positive impact of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation in protecting the Union’s financial interests in cases of systemic and persistent breaches of the rule of law; calls on the Commission and the Council to apply the regulation strictly, consistently and without undue delay wherever necessary; emphasises that decisions to suspend or reduce Union funding over breaches of the rule of law must be based on objective criteria and not be guided by other considerations, nor be the outcome of negotiations;

    75.  Points to the need for a stronger link between the rule of law and the Union budget post-2027 and welcomes the Commission’s commitment to bolster links between the recommendations in the annual rule of law report and access to funds through the budget; calls on the Commission to outline, in the annual rule of law report from 2025 onwards, the extent to which identified weaknesses in rule of law regimes potentially pose a risk to the Union budget; welcomes, furthermore, the link between respect for Union values and the implementation of the budget and calls on the Commission to actively monitor Member States’ compliance with this principle in a unified manner and to take swift action in the event of non-compliance;

    76.  Calls for the consolidation of a robust rule of law toolbox, building on the current conditionality provisions under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), the horizontal enabling conditions in the Common Provisions Regulation and the relevant provisions of the Financial Regulation and insists that the toolbox should cover the entire Union budget; underlines the need for far greater transparency and consistency with regard to the application of tools to protect the rule of law and for Parliament’s role to be strengthened in the application and scrutiny of such measures; insists, furthermore, on the need for consistency across instruments when assessing breaches of the rule of law in Member States;

    77.  Recalls that the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation provides that final recipients should not be deprived of the benefits of EU funds in the event of sanctions being applied to their government; believes that, to date, this provision has not been effective and stresses the importance of applying a smart conditionality approach so that beneficiaries are not penalised because of their government’s actions; calls on the Commission, in line with its stated intention in the political guidelines, to propose specific measures to ensure that local and regional authorities, civil society and other beneficiaries can continue to benefit from Union funding in cases of breaches of the rule of law by national governments without weakening the application of the regulation and maintaining the Member State’s obligation to pay under Union law;

    A long-term budget that mainstreams the Union’s policy objectives

    78.  Stresses that a long-term budget that is fully aligned with the Union’s strategic aims requires that key objectives be mainstreamed across the budget through a set of horizontal principles, building on the lessons from the current MFF and RRF;

    79.  Recalls that the implementation of horizontal principles should not lead to an excessive administrative burden on beneficiaries and be in line with the principle of proportionality; calls for innovative solutions and the use of automated reporting tools, including artificial intelligence, to achieve more efficient data collection;

    80.  Underlines, therefore, that the next MFF must ensure that, across the board, spending programmes pursue climate and biodiversity objectives, promote and protect rights and equal opportunities for all, including gender equality, support competitiveness and bolster the Union’s preparedness against threats;

    81.  Points out that effective mainstreaming is best achieved through a toolbox of measures, primarily through policy, project and regulatory design, thorough impact assessments and solid tracking of spending and, in specific cases, spending targets based on relevant and available data; welcomes the significant improvements in performance reporting in the current MFF, which allow for much better scrutiny of the impact of EU spending and calls for this to be further developed in the next programing period;

    82.  Welcomes the development of a methodology to track gender-based spending and considers that the lessons learnt, in particular as regards the collection of gender-disaggregated data, the monitoring of implementation and impact and administrative burden, should be applied in the next MFF in order to improve the methodology; calls on the Commission to explore the feasibility of gender budgeting in the next MFF; stresses, in the same vein, the need for a significant improvement in climate and biodiversity mainstreaming methodologies to move towards the measurement of impact;

    83.  Regrets that the Commission has not systematically conducted thorough impact assessments, including gender impact assessments, for all legislation involving spending through the budget and insists that this change;

    84.  Is pleased that the climate mainstreaming target of 30 % is projected to be exceeded in the current MFF; regrets, however, that the Union is not on track to meet the 10 % target for 2026 for biodiversity-related expenditure; insists that the targets in the IIA have nevertheless been a major factor in driving climate and biodiversity spending; calls on the Commission to adapt the spending targets contributing positively to climate and biodiversity in line with the Union policy ambitions in this regard, taking into account the investment needs for these policy ambitions;

    85.  Stresses, furthermore, that the Union budget should be implemented in line with Article 33(2) of the Financial Regulation, therefore without doing significant harm(12) to the specified objectives, respecting applicable working and employment conditions and taking into account the principle of gender equality;

    86.  Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to phase out all fossil fuel subsidies and environmentally harmful subsidies in the next MFF; expects the Commission to come forward with its planned roadmap in this regard as part of its proposal for the next MFF;

    A long-term budget with an effective administration at the service of Europeans

    87.  Underlines the need for Union policies to be underpinned by a well-functioning administration; insists that, post-2027, sufficient financial and staff resources be allocated from the outset so that Union institutions, bodies, decentralised agencies and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office can ensure effective and efficient policy design, high-quality delivery and enforcement, provide technical assistance, continue to attract the best people from all Member States, thus ensuring geographical balance, and have leeway to adjust to changing circumstances;

    88.  Regrets that the Union’s ability to implement policy effectively and protect its financial interests within the current MFF has been undermined by stretched administrative resources and a dogmatic application of a policy of stable staffing, despite increasing demands and responsibilities; points, for example, to the failure to provide sufficient staff to properly implement and enforce the Digital Services(13) and Digital Markets Acts(14), thus undercutting the legislation’s effectiveness and to the repeated redeployments from programmes to decentralised agencies to cover staffing needs; insists that staffing levels be determined by an objective needs assessment when legislation is proposed and definitively adopted, and factored into planning for administrative expenditure from the outset;

    89.  Emphasises that the Commission has sought, to some degree, to circumvent its own stable staffing policy by increasing staff attached to programmes and facilities and thus not covered by the administrative spending ceiling; underscores, however, that such an approach merely masks the problem and may ultimately undermine the operational capacity of programmes; insists, therefore, that additional responsibilities require administrative expenditure and must not erode programme envelopes;

    90.  Stresses that up-front investment in secure and interoperable IT infrastructure and data mining capabilities can also generate longer-term cost savings and hugely enhance policy delivery and tracking of spending;

    91.  Acknowledges that, in the absence of any correction mechanism in the current MFF, high inflation has significantly driven up statutory costs, requiring extensive use of special instruments to cover the shortfall; regrets that the Council elected not to take up the Commission’s proposal to raise the ceiling for administrative expenditure in the MFF revision, thus further eroding special instruments;

    A long-term budget that is simpler and more transparent

    92.  Stresses that the next MFF must be designed so as to simplify the lives of all beneficiaries by cutting unnecessary red tape; underlines that simplification will require harmonising rules and reporting requirements wherever possible, including, as relevant, ensuring consistency between the applicable rules at European, national and regional levels; underlines, in that respect, the need for a genuine, user-friendly single entry point for EU funding and a simplified application procedure designed in consultation with relevant stakeholders; points out, furthermore, that the next MFF must be implemented as close to people as possible;

    93.  Calls for genuine simplification where there are overlapping objectives, diverging eligibility criteria and different rules governing horizontal provisions that should be uniform across programmes; considers that an assessment of which spending programmes should be included in the next MFF must be based on the above aspects, on the need to focus spending on clearly identified policy objectives with clear European added value and on the policy intervention logic of each programme; stresses that reducing the number of programmes is not an end in itself;

    94.  Underlines that simplification cannot mean more leeway for the Commission without the necessary checks and balances and must therefore be achieved with full respect for the institutional balance provided for in the Treaties;

    95.  Insists that simplification cannot come at the expense of the quality of programme design and implementation and that, therefore, a simpler budget must also be a more transparent budget, enabling better accountability, scrutiny, control of spending and reducing the risks of double funding, misuse and fraud; underlines that any reduction in programmes must be offset by a far more detailed breakdown of the budget by budget line, in contrast to some programme mergers in the current MFF, such as the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe (NDICI – Global Europe), which is an example not to follow; calls, therefore, for a sufficiently detailed breakdown by budget line to enable the budgetary authority to exercise proper accountability and ensure that decision-making in the annual budgetary procedure and in the course of budget implementation is meaningful;

    96.  Recalls that transparency is essential to retain citizens’ trust, and that fraud and misuse of funds are extremely detrimental to that trust; underlines, therefore, the need for Parliament to be able to control spending and assess whether discharge can be granted; insists that proper accountability requires robust auditing for all budgetary expenditure based on the application of a single audit trail; calls on the Commission to put in place harmonised and effective anti-fraud mechanisms across funding instruments for the post-2027 MFF that ensure the protection of the Union’s budget;

    97.  Reiterates its long-standing position that all EU-level spending should be brought within the purview of the budgetary authority, thereby ensuring transparency, democratic control and protection of the Union’s financial interests; calls, therefore, for the full budgetisation of (partially) off-budget instruments such as the Social Climate Fund, the Innovation Fund and the Modernisation Fund, or their successors;

    A long-term budget that is more flexible and more responsive to crises and shocks

    98.  Points out that, traditionally, the MFF has not been conceived with a crisis response or flexibility logic, but rather has been designed primarily to ensure medium-term investment predictability; underlines that, in a rapidly changing political, security, economic and social context, such an approach is no longer tenable; insists on sufficient in-built crisis response capacity in the next MFF;

    99.  Underscores that the current MFF has been beset by a lack of flexibility and an inability to adjust to evolving spending priorities; considers that the next MFF needs to strike a better balance between investment predictability and flexibility to adjust spending focus; highlights that spending in certain areas requires greater stability than in others where flexibility is more valuable; stresses that recurrent redeployments are not a viable way to finance the Union’s priorities as they damage investments and jeopardise the delivery of agreed policy objectives;

    100.  Believes that, while allocating a significant portion of funding to objectives up-front, spending programmes should retain a substantial in-built flexibility reserve, with allocation to specific policy objectives to be decided by the budgetary authority; notes that the NDICI – Global Europe’s emerging challenges and priorities cushion provides a model for such a flexibility reserve, but that the decision-making process for its mobilisation must not be replicated in the future MFF; points to the need for stronger, more effective scrutiny powers of the co-legislators over the setting of policy priorities and objectives and a detailed budgetary breakdown to ensure that the budgetary authority is equipped to make meaningful and informed decisions;

    101.  Underlines that the MFF must have sufficient margins under each heading to ensure that new instruments or spending objectives agreed over the programming period can be accommodated without eroding funding for other policy and long-term strategic objectives or eating into crisis response capacity;

    102.  Underlines that the possibility for budgetary transfers under the Financial Regulation already provides for flexibility to adjust to evolving spending needs in the course of budget implementation; stresses that, under the current rules, the Commission has significant freedom to transfer considerable amounts between policy areas without budgetary authority approval, which limits scrutiny and control; calls, therefore, for the rules to be changed so as to introduce a maximum amount, in addition to a maximum percentage per budget line, for transfers without approval; considers that for transfers from Union institutions other than the Commission that are subject to a possible duly justified objection by Parliament or the Council, a threshold below which they would be exempt from that procedure could be a useful measure of simplification;

    103.  Recalls that the current MFF has been placed under further strain due to high levels of inflation in a context where an annual 2 % deflator is applied to 2018 prices, reducing the budget’s real-terms value and squeezing its operational and administrative capacity; considers, therefore, that the future budget should be endowed with sufficient response capacity to enable the budget to adapt to inflationary shocks;

    104.  Calls for a root-and-branch reform of the existing special instruments to bolster crisis response capacity and ensure an effective and swift reaction through more rapid mobilisation; underlines that the current instruments are both inadequate in size and constrained by excessive rigidity, with several effectively ring-fenced according to crisis type; points out that enhanced crisis response capacity will ensure that cohesion policy funds are not called upon for that purpose and can therefore be used for their intended investment objectives;

    105.  Considers that the post-2027 MFF should include only two special instruments – one dedicated to ensuring solidarity in the event of natural disasters (the successor to the existing European Solidarity Reserve) and one for general-purpose crisis response and for responding to any unforeseen needs and emerging priorities, including where amounts in the special instrument for natural disasters are insufficient (the successor to the Flexibility Instrument); insists that both special instruments should be adequately funded from the outset and able to carry over unspent amounts indefinitely over the MFF period; believes that all other special instruments can either be wound up or subsumed into the two special instruments or into existing programmes;

    106.  Calls for the future Flexibility Instrument to be heavily front-loaded and subsequently to be fed through a number of additional sources of financing: unspent margins from previous years (as with the current Single Margin Instrument), the annual surplus from the previous year, a fines-based mechanism modelled on the existing Article 5 of the MFF Regulation, reflows from financial instruments and decommitted appropriations; underlines that the next MFF should be designed such that the future special instruments are not required to cover debt repayment;

    107.  Underlines that re-use of the surplus, of reflows from financial instruments and surplus provisioning and of decommitments would require amendments to the Financial Regulation;

    108.  Points out that, with sufficient up-front resources and such arrangements for re-using unused funds, the budget would have far greater response capacity without impinging on the predictability of national GNI-based contributions; insists that an MFF endowed with greater flexibility and response capacity is less likely to require a substantial mid-term revision;

    A long-term budget that is more results-focused

    109.  Emphasises that, in order to maximise impact, it is imperative that spending under the next MFF be much more rigorously aligned with the Union’s strategic policy aims and better coordinated with spending at national level; underlines that, in turn, consultation with regional and local authorities is vital to facilitate access to funding and ensure that Union support meets the real needs of final recipients and delivers tangible benefits for people; underscores the importance of technical assistance to implementing authorities to help ensure timely implementation, additionality of investments and therefore maximum impact;

    110.  Underlines that, in order to support effective coordination between Union and national spending, the Commission envisages a ‘new, lean steering mechanism’ designed ‘to reinforce the link between overall policy coordination and the EU budget’; insists that Parliament play a full decision-making role in any coordination or steering mechanism;

    111.  Considers that the RRF, with its focus on performance and links between reforms and investments and budgetary support, has helped to drive national investments and reforms that would not otherwise have taken place;

    112.  Underlines that the RRF can help to inform the delivery of Union spending under shared management; recalls, however, that the RRF was agreed in the very specific context of the COVID-19 pandemic and cannot, therefore, be replicated wholesale for future investment programmes;

    113.  Points out that spending under shared management in the next MFF must involve regional and local authorities and all relevant stakeholders from design to delivery through a place-based and multilevel governance approach and in line with an improved partnership principle, ensure the cross-border European dimension of investment projects, and focus on results and impact rather than outputs by setting measurable performance indicators, ensuring availability of relevant data and feeding into programme design and adjustment;

    114.  Underlines that the design of shared management spending under the next MFF must safeguard Parliament’s role as legislator, budgetary and discharge authority and in holding the executive to account, putting in place strict accountability mechanisms and guaranteeing full transparency in relation to final recipients or groups of recipients of Union spending funds through an interoperable system enabling effective tracking of cash flows and project progress;

    115.  Considers that the ‘one national plan per Member State’ approach envisaged by the Commission is not in line with the principles set out above and cannot be the basis for shared management spending post-2027; recalls that, in this regard, the Union is required, under Article 175 TFEU, to provide support through instruments for agricultural, regional and social spending;

    A long-term budget that manages liabilities sustainably

    116.  Recalls Parliament’s very firm opposition to subjecting the repayment of NGEU borrowing costs to a cap within an MFF heading given that these costs are subject to market conditions, influenced by external factors and thus inherently volatile, and that the repayment of borrowing costs is a non-discretionary legal obligation; stresses that introducing new own resources is also necessary to prevent future generations from bearing the burden of past debts;

    117.  Deplores the fact that, under the existing architecture and despite the joint declaration by the three institutions as part of the 2020 MFF agreement whereby expenditure to cover NGEU financing costs ‘shall aim at not reducing programmes and funds’, financing for key Union programmes and resources available for special instruments, even after the MFF revision, have de facto been competing with the repayment of NGEU borrowing costs in a context of steep inflation and rising interest rates; recalls that pressure on the budget driven by NGEU borrowing costs was a key factor in cuts to flagship programmes in the MFF revision;

    118.  Underlines that, to date, the Union budget has been required only to repay interest related to NGEU and that, from 2028 onwards, the budget will also have to repay the capital; underscores that, according to the Commission, the total costs for NGEU capital and interest repayments are projected to be around EUR 25-30 billion a year from 2028, equivalent to 15-20 % of payment appropriations in the 2025 budget;

    119.  Acknowledges that, while NGEU borrowing costs will be more stable in the next MFF period as bonds will already have been issued, the precise repayment profile will have an impact on the level of interest and thus on the degree of volatility; insists, therefore, that all costs related to borrowing backed by the Union budget or the budgetary headroom be treated distinctly from appropriations for EU programmes within the MFF architecture;

    120.  Points, in that regard, to the increasing demand for the Union budget to serve as a guarantee for the Union’s vital support through macro-financial assistance and the associated risks; underlines that, in the event of default or the withdrawal of national guarantees, the Union budget ultimately underwrites all macro-financial assistance loans and therefore bears significant and inherently unpredictable contingent liabilities, notably in relation to Ukraine;

    121.  Calls, therefore, on the Commission to design a sound and durable architecture that enables sustainable management of all non-discretionary costs and liabilities, fully preserving Union programmes and the budget’s flexibility and response capacity;

    A long-term budget that is properly resourced and sustainably financed

    122.  Underlines that, as described above, the budgetary needs post-2027 will be significantly higher than the amounts allocated to the 2021-2027 MFF and, in addition, will need to cover borrowing costs and debt repayment; insists, therefore, that the next MFF be endowed with significantly increased resources compared to the 2021-2027 period, moving away from the historically restrictive, self-imposed level of 1 % of GNI, which has prevented the Union from delivering on its ambitions and deprived it of the ability to respond to crises and adapt to emerging needs;

    123.  Considers that all instruments and tools should be explored in order to provide the Union with those resources, in line with its priorities and identified needs; considers, in this respect, that joint borrowing through the issuance of EU bonds presents a viable option to ensure that the Union has sufficient resources to respond to acute Union-wide crises such as the ongoing crisis in the area of security and defence;

    124.  Reiterates the need for sustainable and resilient revenue for the Union budget; points to the legally binding roadmap towards the introduction of new own resources in the IIA, in which Parliament, the Council and the Commission undertook to introduce sufficient new own resources to at least cover the repayment of NGEU debt; underlines that, overall, the basket of new own resources should be fair, linked to broader Union policy aims and agreed on time and with sufficient volume to meet the heightened budgetary needs;

    125.  Recalls its support for the amended Commission proposal on the system of own resources; is deeply concerned by the complete absence of progress on the system of own resources in the Council; calls on the Council to adopt this proposal as a matter of urgency; and urges the Commission to spare no effort in supporting the adoption process;

    126.  Calls furthermore, on the Commission to continue efforts to identify additional innovative and genuine new own resources and other revenue sources beyond those specified in the IIA; stresses that new own resources are essential not only to enable repayment of NGEU borrowing, but to ensure that the Union is equipped to cover its the higher spending needs;

    127.  Calls on the Commission to design a modernised budget with a renewed spending focus, driven by the need for fairness, greater simplification, a reduced administrative burden and more transparency, including on the revenue side; underlines that existing rebates and corrections automatically expire at the end of the current MFF;

    128.  Welcomes the decision, in the recast of the Financial Regulation, to treat as negative revenue any interest or other charge due to a third party relating to amounts of fines, other penalties or sanctions that are cancelled or reduced by the Court of Justice; recalls that this solution comes to an end on 31 December 2027; invites the Commission to propose a definitive solution for the next MFF that achieves the same objective of avoiding any impact on the expenditure side of the budget;

    A long-term budget grounded in close interinstitutional cooperation

    129.  Underlines that Parliament intends to fully exercise its prerogatives as legislator, budgetary authority and discharge authority under the Treaties;

    130.  Recalls that the requirement for close interinstitutional cooperation between the Commission, the Council and Parliament from the early design stages to the final adoption of the MFF is enshrined in the Treaties and further detailed in the IIA;

    131.  Emphasises Parliament’s commitment to play its role fully throughout the process; believes that the design of the MFF should be bottom-up and based on the extensive involvement of stakeholders; underlines, furthermore, the need for a strategic dialogue among the three institutions in the run-up to the MFF proposals;

    132.  Calls on the Commission to put forward practical arrangements for cooperation and genuine negotiations from the outset; points, in particular, to the importance of convening meetings of the three Presidents, as per Article 324 TFEU, wherever they can aid progress, and insists that the Commission follow up when Parliament requests such meetings; reminds the Commission of its obligation to provide information to Parliament on an equal footing with the Council as the two arms of the budgetary authority and as co-legislators on MFF-related basic acts;

    133.  Recalls that the IIA specifically provides for Parliament, the Council and the Commission to ‘seek to determine specific arrangements for cooperation and dialogue’; stresses that the cooperation provisions set out in the IIA, including regular meetings between Parliament and the Council, are a bare minimum and that much more is needed to give effect to the principle in Article 312(5) TFEU of taking ‘any measure necessary to facilitate the adoption of a new MFF’; calls, therefore, on the successive Council presidencies to respect not only the letter, but also the spirit of the Treaties;

    134.  Recalls that the late adoption of the MFF regulation and related legislation for the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 periods led to significant delays, which hindered the proper implementation of EU programmes; insists, therefore, that every effort be made to ensure timely adoption of the upcoming MFF package;

    135.  Expects the Commission, as part of the package of MFF proposals, to put forward a new IIA in line with the realities of the new budget, including with respect to the management of contingent liabilities; stresses that the changes to the Financial Regulation necessary for alignment with the new MFF should enter into force at the same time as the MFF Regulation;

    o
    o   o

    136.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

    (1) OJ L 433I, 22.12.2020, p. 11, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/2093/oj.
    (2) OJ L 424, 15.12.2020, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2020/2053/oj.
    (3) OJ L 433I, 22.12.2020, p. 28, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_interinstit/2020/1222/oj.
    (4) OJ L 2024/2509, 26.9.2024, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj.
    (5) OJ L 433I, 22.12.2020, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/2092/oj.
    (6) OJ C, C/2024/6751, 26.11.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6751/oj.
    (7) OJ C, C/2023/1067, 15.12.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1067/oj.
    (8) OJ C 177, 17.5.2023, p. 115.
    (9) OJ C 445, 29.10.2021, p. 240.
    (10) OJ C 428, 13.12.2017, p. 10.
    (11) OJ C, C/2025/279, 24.1.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/279/oj.
    (12) Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (OJ L 198, 22.6.2020, p. 13, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/852/oj).
    (13) Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj).
    (14) Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) (OJ L 265, 12.10.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1925/oj).

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Text adopted – Competition policy – annual report 2024 – P10_TA(2025)0104 – Thursday, 8 May 2025 – Strasbourg

    Source: European Parliament

    The European Parliament,

    –  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular to Articles 101 to 109 thereof,

    –  having regard to the publication of 18 July 2024 by Ursula von der Leyen entitled ‘Europe’s choice – political guidelines for the next European Commission 2024–2029’,

    –  having regard to the report of 9 September 2024 by Mario Draghi entitled ‘The future of European competitiveness’,

    –  having regard to the report of 18 April 2024 by Enrico Letta entitled ‘Much more than a market’,

    –  having regard to the European Court of Auditors Special Report21/2024 of 23 October 2024 entitled ‘State aid in times of crisis – Swift reaction but shortcomings in the Commission’s monitoring and inconsistencies in the framework to support the EU’s industrial policy objectives’,

    –  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation)(1),

    –   having regard to Article 11 TFEU, which mandates the integration of environmental protection requirements into the definition and implementation of all EU policies and activities, with a view to promoting sustainable development,

    –  having regard to Article 3 of Decision (EU) 2022/591 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 April 2022 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2030(2), which provides that environmentally harmful subsidies, in particular fossil fuel subsidies, should be phased out without delay,

    –  having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 3 September 2024 in Case C‑611/22 P, Illumina v Commission(3), of 10 September 2024 in Case C‑465/20 P, European Commission v Ireland and Others(4), and of 10 September 2024 in Case C‑48/22 P (Google and Alphabet v Commission)(5),

    –  having regard to the Commission’s report of June 2024 entitled ‘Protecting competition in a changing world – Evidence on the evolution of competition in the EU during the past 25 years’,

    –  having regard to the study entitled ‘The role of commodity traders in shaping agricultural markets’, published by its Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies in November 2024,

    –  having regard to the report of 20 December 2023 by the European Securities and Markets Authority entitled ‘CRA Market Share Report: 2023 edition’,

    –  having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

    –  having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A10-0071/2025),

    A.  whereas the current challenging economic, climate and geopolitical contexts, marked by uncertainty and unpredictability, require a renewed approach to European competitiveness and concrete strategies to boost economic growth;

    B.  whereas the proper enforcement of the EU competition policy framework leads to lower prices, higher quality, greater choice for consumers, faster innovation and a fairer and more resilient economy, and protects entry conditions for operators in the internal market, tackling abuses of dominant position, monopolies and practices distortive to the internal market;

    C.  whereas the Draghi report underlines that the EU has a broad and diversified industrial innovation base, with a strong comparative advantage in green technologies, but that sustained efforts are needed in order to retain that advantage; whereas the integration of climate and environmental considerations into competition policy is essential, in that regard; whereas the Letta report maintains that the lack of EU integration in the financial, energy and electronic communications sectors is a primary reason for Europe’s declining competitiveness;

    D.  whereas the EU’s competition policy could contribute to bolstering the resilience of the internal market, as well as achieving the goals of the European Green Deal, the 2030 Digital Compass and the Competitiveness Compass, for which international exchange and cooperation are essential;

    E.  whereas the Commission and the national competition authorities need to act in an impartial and objective way in order to preserve the credibility of the EU’s competition policy; whereas the political independence of national competition authorities is of utmost importance to ensure the impartiality and credibility of competition policy;

    General considerations

    1.  Considers that EU competition law seeks to shield against excessive levels of concentration and accumulation of market power, and reaffirms the role of competition policy in encouraging efficiency, innovation and growth, creating a level playing field and protecting consumers, by assuring that markets remain competitive, efficient, dynamic and innovative, delivering high-quality products and services at fair prices and with a wider range of choice;

    2.  Reiterates that competition policy should contribute to all of the EU’s policies, notably in the fields of sustainability, energy, defence and digitalisation; welcomes the Commission’s commitment to a new State aid framework to accompany the Clean Industrial Deal, so as to ensure competitiveness through mobilising the necessary public support for the energy transition to decarbonise EU industry, while ensuring that this does not hinder innovation, increase prices or reduce competition in the internal market; reiterates that State aid should not distort fair and effective competition;

    3.  Emphasises that the global strength and importance of the EU single market derives not only from its internal and external competitiveness but also from its ability to set common standards and guarantee territorial cohesion; notes that at the same time, policymakers should take due account of international regulatory and market developments and calls on the Commission to strive for continued dialogue and cooperation at international level, including via second-generation cooperation agreements that allow for more effective information exchange between competition authorities, and the development of influence on competition policy, globally; highlights the importance of the European Competition Network (ECN) and calls on the Commission to prioritise sustained constructive dialogue and cooperation, in this regard, at international level; calls for the coordination between national competition authorities to ensure the uniform application of competition rules and underlines the necessity of increasing collaboration between antitrust and other sectoral regulators;

    A competitive Union

    4.  Supports the Commission’s commitment to investing in sustainable competitiveness; welcomes the Draghi report’s emphasis on innovation, investments, market integration, decarbonisation and resilience, and the Letta report’s focus on integration, autonomy and solidarity; encourages policies that promote innovation, competitiveness and sustainable and inclusive growth;

    5.  Underlines the need for coordinated, targeted and truly European industrial policy to boost competitiveness; notes that this must not result in market dominance or abuse thereof, price distortion or economic inefficiencies, and points to the need for effective merger control procedures;

    6.  Considers that any State aid granted should be consistent with EU policy objectives; notes the Commission’s intention to provide guidance on the compatibility of State aid with innovation, climate and economic security considerations, as well as its actions to scale down and phase out fossil fuel subsidies under the Clean Industrial Deal, and encourages the Member States to consider the introduction of further conditions for the receipt of State aid; calls for companies structured through non-EU tax havens to be barred from receiving State aid; invites the Commission to investigate the lack of harmonisation of clawback mechanisms;

    7.  Takes note of the Commission’s report asserting that market concentration, markups and profits have increased over the past 25 years, while industry dynamism has decreased, despite the active enforcement of competition law; also takes note that this increase in markups was found to be driven by market share reallocation towards the largest firms; further notes that weak levels of competition have had significant negative impacts on consumers, purchasing power, and on the competitiveness of EU firms and overall economic growth; recalls that the application of competition law should focus on ensuring open, competitive markets free from anti-competitive practices;

    8.  Points out that State aid is increasingly used to support industrial policy objectives; recalls that such aid, as permitted under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, must not adversely affect trading conditions or the common interest; notes the divergent fiscal capabilities of the Member States and warns that fragmented State aid creates an uneven playing field; calls on the Commission to monitor these effects and to ensure the integrity of the single market, which can be done through a common financing instrument for a European industrial policy, such as a European Competitiveness Fund, as proposed by Commission President von der Leyen in her political guidelines; calls on the Commission and the Member States not to engage in subsidy competition, which only exacerbates market distortions, notably when financing undertakings that are not efficient; concludes that temporary State aid frameworks have failed to prevent further market fragmentation and notes that only two of the Member States accounted for 77 % of State aid notified; calls for stricter State aid notification monitoring and enhanced State aid reporting and transparency, in line with the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors;

    9.   Underlines the importance of the important projects of common European interest (IPCEIs) for financing projects within the EU with a cross-border dimension; stresses that IPCEIs should have genuine EU added value, which means that they should have a positive impact on more than one Member State; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that any such State aid notification is completed within six months at the latest;

    10.  Takes note of the Draghi report’s estimate that, in order to protect our EU competitiveness, an additional EUR 800 billion per year is needed; acknowledges the importance of public and private investment in this context; underlines that the EU budget needs to be properly equipped to that end; regards the completion of the Savings and Investments Union as important for mobilising private investment, addressing the fragmentation of the internal market and supporting the EU’s industrial strategy; acknowledges the urgent need for reforms alongside the effective implementation of the three action areas outlined in the Draghi report: (i) closing the innovation gap with the US and China; (ii) a common plan for decarbonisation and competitiveness to accelerate the energy transition and reduce energy costs; and (iii) enhancing security and reducing dependencies;

    11.  Welcomes the protection of the level playing field of European markets and European companies and their workers granted by anti-dumping measures that correct for distortive foreign State aid; calls on the Commission to make swift use of available trade instruments on procurement and foreign subsidies to prevent unfair competition in the internal market;

    Enforcement priorities

    12.  Observes changes in business practices, highlighting a decline in cartel cases; cautions, however, against new forms of harmful conduct like tacit collusion and algorithmic collusion, and emphasises the need to align enforcement priorities with this evolving landscape;

    13.  Notes the Draghi report’s proposal for a ‘new competition tool’ as a flexible market investigation tool designed to address structural competition problems that do not result from anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominance, and to impose market-wide, forward-looking structural or behavioural remedies, including by lowering entry barriers for competitors, with the aim of increasing competitiveness, incentivising innovation and protecting vulnerable consumers; invites the Commission to analyse how this tool would complement the existing framework for sector investigations;

    14.  Recalls that under the Treaty, the Commission is empowered to address exploitative abuses;

    15.  Acknowledges the existence of a legal base for structural remedies against the abuse of market dominance; is aware that EU competition rules stipulate that structural remedies should only be used as a last resort if behavioural remedies have proven ineffective, but nonetheless regrets the reluctance of the Commission to address market dominance through structural remedies; reiterates its invitation to make better use of structural remedies and end the primacy given to behavioural remedies, and encourages further efforts to strengthen their application when necessary; calls on the Commission to make better use of the interim measures instrument to stop any practice that would seriously harm competition, particularly in relation to dynamic and rapidly developing markets such as digital markets;

    16.  Welcomes the priority given to housing by the 2024-2029 Commission; calls on the Commission to assess how EU competition principles affect the supply of services of general economic interest (SGEI); calls on the Commission to assess the position of social services of general interest and an SGEI exemption for affordable housing;

    17.  Stresses the importance of State aid as a tool for closing the economic gap between more developed EU regions and island areas, inland areas, outermost regions and economically depressed areas; recalls that allowing State aid in the context of SGEIs remains essential for the survival of these areas, especially in the context of State support dedicated to connectivity and other basic provisions of services for communities residing in isolated, remote or peripheral regions of the EU; calls on the Commission to investigate possibilities of further flexibility in providing funding to these regions;

    18.  Takes note of the recent Court of Justice of the European Union ruling which found that one of the Member States has failed to transpose the ECN+ Directive into national legislation; underlines the importance of transposing the ECN+ Directive fully; calls on all of the Member States to ensure a proper implementation of this Directive;

    Merger and antitrust

    19.  Notes with concern the Court of Justice of the European Union’s interpretation of Article 22 of the EC Merger Regulation in Case C-611/22 P (Illumina v Commission), rescinding the Commission’s approach of accepting referrals of non-notifiable deals; acknowledges that the EC Merger Regulation does not provide the Commission with sufficient tools for dealing with killer acquisitions; strongly believes that the impact of merger decisions on the internal market justifies the inclusion of an internal market legal base in the EC Merger Regulation, so as to fully involve co-legislators, in a manner similar to that of the Digital Markets Act (DMA); calls on the Commission to require Member States that have or can claim the relevant competence to examine potential killer acquisitions in the light of their national merger control laws, and to continue to refer those deals in accordance with Article 22 of the EC Merger Regulation; calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of reviewing the EC Merger Regulation to be able to examine mergers that fall below EU or national thresholds, regardless of the sectors involved;

    20.  Notes that since the 2004 entry into force of the EC Merger Regulation, 0,7 % of notified mergers have been either blocked by the Commission or withdrawn following an investigation;

    21.  Notes that the turnover thresholds in the EC Merger Regulation alone might not be suitable for detecting all cases that should be reviewed by the competition authorities; highlights practices used by dominant firms to avoid formal investigations, such as the growing use of ‘partnerships’ in the AI sector, which further suggests that a review of the EU Merger Regulation is necessary;

    22.  Welcomes the Draghi report’s proposal for an ‘innovation defence’ in cases where a merger increases the ability and incentive to innovate, and invites the Commission to analyse and further develop this concept; furthermore calls for matters of public interest, such as the impact on workers, to be taken into account;

    23.  Asks the Commission to identify the national barriers that may prevent it from considering the EU market as the relevant one in its analyses of mergers; calls on the Commission to present a legislative proposal to remove these impediments; notes that the international environment needs to be carefully analysed when deciding on the definition of the relevant market in competition and merger control cases; calls on the Commission to adopt a forward-looking approach to consolidation in the EU where appropriate, as also proposed by the Draghi and Letta reports, taking into account the strategic importance and pro-competitive impact of scale and favourable investment conditions in certain sectors for driving innovation and long-term competition;

    24.  Calls for merger assessment frameworks to be updated to reflect the realities of the digital economy, where market power can be manifested in ways beyond traditional market share in clearly delineated markets; supports the development of advanced methodologies for analysing data-driven dominance and network effects, emphasising the critical role of consumer choice in selecting digital services and devices; encourages the Commission to enhance mechanisms enabling interoperability across services and devices, fostering innovation and competition in the digital ecosystem; urges the Commission to progress swiftly on the implementation of the existing interoperability obligations for messaging services under the DMA, the existing interoperability obligations for cloud providers under the Data Act and to start work on the review of the DMA for May 2026; urges the Commission to implement existing interoperability obligations under the DMA and look into extending interoperability obligations to online social networking services; supports the Commission in taking more account of the potential harm to competition when assessing mergers where expansion into adjacent markets would have the effect of further strengthening market dominance in the acquiring company’s core market;

    25.  Calls on the Commission to address excessively long antitrust investigations during which companies continue to benefit from their anticompetitive practices; calls on the Commission to set appropriate time limits for antitrust cases and ensure an effective follow-through of decisions taken; calls on the Commission to adopt further interim measures to stop any practice which would seriously harm competition, particularly in relation to dynamic and rapidly developing markets such as digital markets;

    Sectoral policies

    26.  Welcomes the two September 2024 landmark judgments by the Court of Justice confirming the Commission’s assertion that the Irish tax deal with Apple constitutes illegal State aid and that Google abused its dominant position in contravention of the Treaties; acknowledges that the legal framework in Ireland has since changed; encourages the Commission to continue the clamp down on State aid abuses involving the selective granting of tax breaks to companies;

    27.  Notes the detrimental effect of international tax competition; recalls its support for the implementation of Pillar Two of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); deeply regrets the US presidential Executive Order of 20 January 2025 which asserts that the OECD global tax agreement has ‘no force or effect within the United States’; stresses the importance of multilateralism in ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share of taxation where value is created; takes the view that the EU should fully stand by the OECD’s Pillar Two Directive;

    28.  Emphasises the worrying market concentrations in various digital markets, such as social media, search engines, AI, cloud services, e-commerce, microchips and online advertising; underlines the actual and potential negative impact on EU competitiveness, the resilience of supply chains, media freedom, privacy and data protection, society and democracy; urges the Commission to address issues that are specific to the tech market, including infrastructural power in hardware and cloud computing layers, vertical concentration, algorithmic manipulation of the digital public sphere and market leveraging in digital markets, as demonstrated by the progress made under the DMA; additionally calls for the opening of new investigations into the cloud services sector to further ensure fair competition and innovation, taking into account the degree of market concentration in this sector and anticompetitive practices related to complex and non-transparent licensing terms or forced bundling; furthermore, urges the Commission to address the increasing vertical concentration of dominant players across the advertising value chain, which puts the EU online advertising sector at risk;

    29.  Notes the rapid development of AI services, which has the potential to result in market concentration; calls on the Commission to take an ecosystemic approach towards this sector, including by developing and applying new theories of harm to address the further entrenchment of the dominant players in this sector; highlights that the DMA contains several provisions that must be used to prevent gatekeepers from restricting emerging AI developers, and asks the Commission to act swiftly to address the risk of consumers being forced into using pre-determined AI services on their mobile devices, ensuring that AI systems remain user-selectable and transparent, thereby safeguarding competition and consumer choice; calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of adding generative AI as a new core platform service under the DMA;

    30.  Notes that large digital players use their market power, power over consumers, financial resources and data concentration in one market to leverage their position in another; stresses that small players cannot compete with the aforementioned factors, which makes EU citizens even more dependent on the same small number of non-EU companies and endangers strategic autonomy; calls for increased scrutiny of the leveraging of position by dominant digital sector players into other sectors and the EU’s strategic autonomy, through a revision of the merger guidelines to ensure that market leveraging can be scrutinised more effectively;

    31.  Notes the importance of data and data analytics tools as one of the deterring factors for digital market concentrations and acquisitions in the digital sector; calls for an opinion of the European Data Protection Board in cases of concentrations involving one or more operators in digital sectors on the relevance of datasets for the intended concentration, the personal data the target acquisition processes and the potential impact on the rights to privacy and data protection the intended concentration has;

    32.  Expresses concern regarding the growing use of dynamic pricing mechanisms across the EU; calls on the Commission to explore regulatory measures against highly adaptive and opaque pricing methods;

    33.  Calls on the Commission to vigorously enforce all competition rules, including the Foreign Subsidies Regulation and the DMA, in order to address gatekeeper practices and foster contestable markets and fair competition; stresses that the Commission must have sufficient staff for enforcement, while noting that new tools, as well as scientists and economists stemming from divergent disciplines, can work to improve competition law enforcement; underlines in particular that the DMA should be applied rigorously and independently, without any undermining by external pressures; stresses that the DMA and potential fines must not be used as a bargaining chip in relation to discussions on tariffs, but as a cornerstone of the EU’s efforts to ensure fair and competitive digital markets; notes the six non-compliance procedures launched against some designated gatekeepers; is deeply concerned about potential delays in critical investigations and the capacity of the Commission to respect their ‘best effort’ obligations and to make a decision on non-compliance procedures without undue delay;

    34.  Notes with concern the fragmentation in numerous consumer markets, including financial services, telecoms and household energy, and calls for faster and greater market integration where there are benefits for consumers, and for recognition that this market integration can drive investment and innovation;

    35.  Expresses alarm at the high concentration in the retail, agricultural and automotive sectors in overseas territories whereby excessive prices set by dominant undertakings on essential products and services amplify inequalities, precariousness and territorial disparities; calls on the Commission to launch an investigation into potential abuses of dominant position under Article 102 TFEU;

    36.  Notes with concern the high degree of market concentration in the European financial sector, as well as its sustained over-reliance on a limited number of non-EU service providers; notes that the three largest credit rating agencies still hold a market share of over 90 %; expresses concern about the continued high concentration in the public interest entities (PIE) audit market, with four firms mainly holding the vast majority of EU revenues for PIE audits, limiting choice and risking supervisory capture; invites the Commission to present an impact assessment on options to address these concerns; urges the Commission to carefully assess public tenders for expertise from audit market participants so that potential conflicts of interest are avoided;

    37.  Expresses concern about the food price crisis and notes, in this regard, the high levels of market concentration in food supply chains; reiterates its call for the Commission to urgently conduct a thorough analysis of the extent and effect of buying alliances, thereby devoting special attention to guaranteeing fair competition and greater transparency in supermarket and hypermarket chains’ commercial practices, particularly where such practices affect brand value and product choice or limit innovation or price comparability; recalls, in this light, the market concentration in agri-commodity trading wherein four companies account for the vast majority of the global crop trade; regrets that the Commission nonetheless conditionally approved the 2024 Bunge-Viterra merger (M.11204) despite competition concerns; asks the Commission to address excessive power accumulation in the hands of a few large players in this market, in order to strengthen the bargaining position of farmers and consumers alike; highlights the implementation of the New Competition Tool in this context;

    38.  Notes the high-net profits of EU banks during this inflationary period, mostly driven by the delayed pass-through of the rapid monetary policy tightening to deposit rates;

    39.  Notes with particular concern the dominant position of two international card schemes in the EU payments market, and their engagement in practices that reinforce and extend their dominance of this market, potentially further increasing barriers to entry and hampering long-term innovation(6), as well as leading to higher costs for EU businesses and ultimately consumers; calls on the Commission to take decisive actions, emphasising the need for a review of the Interchange Fee Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2015/751) to tackle the significant increase in card scheme fees charged by international card schemes and to ensure a fair, competitive and transparent market environment;

    Parliamentary involvement

    40.  Stresses that Parliament should be sufficiently involved in shaping competition policy; cautions against the over-reliance on soft-law instruments, such as guidance and temporary frameworks, in which Parliament’s involvement is limited; calls on the Commission to enter into negotiation for an interinstitutional agreement on competition policy to formalise its enforcement priorities to Parliament; calls on the European Council to adopt a decision under Article 48(7) TEU allowing for the adoption of legislative acts in the area of competition policy in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure; stresses that Parliament should be more involved in the activity of working parties and expert groups in the International Competition Network and the OECD as an observer, and also in the High-Level Group on the DMA;

    41.  Calls on the responsible Executive Vice-President, also Commissioner in charge of competition policy to maintain close contact with Parliament’s competent committee and its working group on competition issues;

    o
    o   o

    42.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

    (1) OJ L 024, 29.1.2004, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/139/oj.
    (2) OJ L 114, 12.4.2022, p. 22, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2022/591/oj.
    (3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 September 2024, Illumina v Commission, C-611/22 P, ECLI:EU:C:2024:677.
    (4) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 September 2024, European Commission v Ireland and Others, C-465/20 P, ECLI:EU:C:2024:724.
    (5) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 September 2024, Google and Alphabet v Commission, C-48/22 P, CLI:EU:C:2024:726.
    (6) European Court of Auditors, Special Report: ‘Digital payments in the EU – Progress towards making them safer, faster, and less expensive, despite remaining gaps’, 9 January 2025, https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/SR-2025-01/SR-2025-01_EN.pdf.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senators Marshall, Hoeven, and Boozman Lead Effort to Bolster Crop Insurance and Reduce Costs for Farmers

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall
    Washington – U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas) joined U.S. Senators John Hoeven (R-North Dakota), a senior member of the Senate Agriculture Committee and Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee, and Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Arkansas) in reintroducing the Federal Agriculture Risk Management Enhancement and Resilience (FARMER) Act – legislation that strengthens crop insurance and makes increased levels of coverage more affordable for producers.
    “The FARMER Act is a major step toward ensuring the farm safety net stays intact and up to date for those who work tirelessly to provide us with food and fuel. I hear repeatedly from farmers in Kansas that crop insurance is the top priority in the Farm Bill because it provides a critically needed rapid response when disaster strikes,” said Senator Marshall.“Investing in crop insurance means protecting rural economies and securing our nation’s food supply.”
    “Crop insurance remains the number one risk management tool for our farmers, but it doesn’t provide the kind of affordable coverage options that all producers need. The result has been the repeated need for ad-hoc disaster assistance. Ultimately, producers buying higher levels of coverage will lessen the need for ad-hoc disaster assistance in the future,” said Senator Hoeven. “That means less emergency spending by the federal government, greater certainty for farmers and a more resilient ag economy. Those are wins across the board.”
    “Farmers must have the risk management tools they need to plan for the future. The Farmer Act would make critical improvements to the farm safety net and deliver support to producers across the country who rely on these programs. I appreciate Senator Hoeven for continuing to lead on this issue as we work provide certainty to America’s farm families,” said Senator Boozman.
    The legislation is also cosponsored by Senators Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi), Jim Justice (R-West Virginia), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Deb Fischer (R-Nebraska), and Jerry Moran (R-Kansas). 
    Specifically, the Federal Agriculture Risk Management Enhancement and Resilience (FARMER) Act would:
    Increase premium support for higher levels of crop insurance coverage, which will enhance affordability and reduce the need for future ad-hoc disaster assistance.
    Improve the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) by increasing premium support and expanding the coverage level, providing producers with an additional level of protection.
    Direct the Risk Management Agency (RMA) to conduct a study to improve the effectiveness of SCO in large counties.
    Not require producers to choose between purchasing enhanced crop insurance coverage or participating in Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs, giving them flexibility to make decisions that work best for their operations. 
    This legislation is supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, Crop Insurance and Reinsurance Bureau, Crop Insurance Professionals Association, Farm Credit Council, Midwest Council on Agriculture, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National Sunflower Association, USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council, U.S. Beet Sugar Association, U.S. Canola Association, U.S. Durum Growers Association, and Western Peanut Growers Association.
    The full text of the legislation can be found here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Kazakhstan’s GDP grew by 6 percent in January-April 2025

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    ALMATY, May 12 (Xinhua) — Kazakhstan’s GDP growth was 6 percent in January-April 2025, according to forecast data from the National Statistics Bureau of Kazakhstan, the press service of the Ministry of National Economy of Kazakhstan reported on Monday.

    Acceleration of the pace of development is noted in key sectors of the economy: transport /22.4 percent/, trade /7 percent/. Growth was also recorded in agriculture /3.9 percent/ and communications /2.6 percent/.

    Growth in the transport sector was achieved due to an increase in the volume of services for the transportation of goods by rail and pipeline transport, the shares of which in the total volume of the industry amounted to 20.5 percent and 19.6 percent, respectively.

    In the construction industry, the index of physical volume of work amounted to 16.2%.

    The trade sector demonstrated steady growth – 7% against 6.3% in the first quarter. The wholesale trade indicator increased to 7.4%, retail – to 6.1%.

    In industry, the production index reached 6.4%. Growth was noted in the mining sector – 7.1%, in particular due to an increase in coal production /11.2%/. In the manufacturing industry, the indicator is 7.2%, including the production of food products /12%/, tobacco products /26.3%/, chemical products /11.2%/ and mechanical engineering /11.2%/.

    Agriculture is also showing positive dynamics. The gross output index for January-April was 3.9 percent. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI USA: SCHUMER – WITH CAPITAL REGION RELIGIOUS LEADERS, FOOD BANKS & FARMERS – SOUNDS ALARM THAT UNDER GOP PLAN TO CUT SNAP – AMERICA’S LARGEST ANTI-HUNGER PROGRAM – THOUSANDS OF KIDS, SENIORS, & FAMILIES…

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New York Charles E Schumer

    Already 27 Tractor Trailers, Nearly 1 Million Pounds Of Food, For The Regional Food Bank Of Northeastern NY Has Been Canceled Due To Trump’s Cruel USDA Cuts – Now GOP Wants To Steal Up To $230 Billion From SNAP To Fund Trump’s Tax Breaks For Corporations & Billionaires

    Schumer, With Church Leaders & Advocates, Say This Double Whammy Could Hurtle Families To A Hunger Crisis, Impacting 112,000+ In Capital Region, Millions Nationwide; Demands GOP Block Cruel Cut To SNAP And Protect Anti-Hunger Programs

    Schumer: No Child Should Go To Bed Hungry. This Is Not A Partisan Issue; This Is A Moral Issue

    As Congressional Republicans look to advance the largest potential cut to the anti-hunger program SNAP in American history this week, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer stood with Capital Region religious leaders, food banks, & farmers to issue a stark warning and demand action against the devastating proposed $230 billion SNAP cut to fund Trump’s tax cuts for corporations & billionaires, that would leave thousands of seniors, families and children hungry. The senator joined with church leaders and hunger advocates to say how this is a moral issue that we should all unite to stop, and Schumer called on the administration to reverse its hunger program cuts and for the NY House Republicans to stand against stealing from SNAP, which over 112,000 in the Capital Region rely on for food.

    “No child should ever go to bed hungry. But Trump’s slashing of anti-hunger programs at the USDA has already cancelled 27 tractor trailers, nearly 1 million pounds of food, for the Regional Food Bank of Northeastern NY. Now, House Republicans are trying to rush through the budget process and make the largest cut to SNAP in history. With food insecurity on the rise, this is a double whammy that could hurtle families to a hunger crisis,” said Senator Schumer. “Stealing from SNAP to pay for Trump’s tax breaks for corporations & billionaires is as backwards as it gets, and will result in thousands of kids, seniors, and families going hungry. It is not a partisan issue, it is a moral issue. That is why I am here to show what these cuts mean for the nuns, priests, and food banks on the frontlines of fighting against hunger. Together we are demanding a stop to this all-out assault on our federal anti-hunger programs and to protect SNAP for our children, veterans, seniors, and families.”

    Sister Betsy Van Deusen, CEO of Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany said, “SNAP is a lifeline for so many people in our communities and across the country. Working people who are trying to feed their families depend on this critical resource. The vast and draconian cuts that have been discussed will send children to bed hungry, our elders without basic nutrition and our veterans without dignity. the lives of wealthiest people in our country will not be substantially changed by another tax cut, but the millions on whose backs those cuts come, will be devastated.”

    Schumer added, “It only takes a few NY House Republicans to join us to stop this cruel cut to SNAP. We need NY Republicans to show us which side they are on with their actions. For feeding corporate & billionaires’ greed or for feeding hungry families here in the Capital Region. We need them to join us in demanding the USDA reverse all of Trump’s cuts to our farmers, food banks, and anti-hunger programs and keep their hands off SNAP to fund Trump’s tax breaks.”

    Schumer explained how Trump’s USDA has already cruelly canceled $1 billion in food assistance, hurting the Capital Region’s Food Bank of Northeastern NY, and if these SNAP cuts move forward it would be a double whammy, hurtling us to a hunger crisis. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a lifeline for nearly 3 million NY seniors, veterans and families who rely on the critical funding to purchase groceries. Schumer said that we should be investing more not less in anti-hunger programs, but under the Republican proposal, the average family would be reduced to just $5.00 per day per person. A breakdown of SNAP recipients in the Capital Region from the Center for American Progress can be found below:

    County

    SNAP Recipients

    % of County on SNAP

    SNAP Retailers

    Albany

    34,556

    10.9%

    281

    Columbia

    5,546

    9.1%

    82

    Greene

    4,504

    9.5%

    54

    Rensselaer

    15,022

    9.4%

    148

    Saratoga

    13,847

    5.8%

    163

    Schenectady

    22,196

    13.9%

    166

    Schoharie

    3,671

    12.2%

    34

    Warren

    6,726

    10.3%

    75

    Washington

    6,556

    10.8%

    61

    TOTAL

    112,624

     

    1,064

    Schumer explained the Republican proposal to cut up to $230 billion from SNAP would inevitably mean costs of feeding families shift to states, who simply do not have the capacity to absorb this massive increase in expenses, risking families going hungry. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, mandating New York State to cover even a modest share of SNAP benefits would shift astronomical costs to the state with even just 5% increasing New York State’s costs by nearly $3.5 billion from FY2026 to FY2034. The senator said it is impossible to cut this much from federal SNAP funding without ripping food away from hungry children, seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and more.

    These agonizing decisions would be amplified even further at the local level, with non-profits, many of whom have already had their funding cut, unable to fill in the gap. Counties could even be forced to shoulder the burden of increased costs in SNAP, using more local dollars to provide coverage because less federal funding will be coming in.

    According to New York’s Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, in New York’s 20th Congressional District – which represents all of Albany, Saratoga, and Schenectady counties, and portions of Montgomery and Rensselaer counties – nearly 45,000 households receive an estimated $185 million in annual benefits. 34% of SNAP recipients are children, 15% are elderly, and 12% are people with disabilities. In New York’s 21st Congressional District – which represents all of Clinton, Franklin, St. Lawrence, Lewis, Hamilton, Essex, Warren, Washington, Fulton, Herkimer, Montgomery, and Schoharie counties, and portions of Jefferson, Oneida, and Saratoga counties – more than 52,000 households receive as estimated$194 million in annual benefits. 30% of SNAP recipients are children, 18% are elderly, and 14% are people with disabilities.

    Schumer said, “SNAP is a lifeline that helps uplift everyone, from the NY farms who get direct assistance from the program to the Capital Region families’ kitchen tables. NY Republicans are tying themselves in knots to try to justify these SNAP cuts, but the math shows you cannot make the massive cuts the House’s tax bill proposes without risking the food security for thousands of families. I’m all for reducing any waste or fraud to make the program more efficient, but rushing to pass these massive damaging cuts with no plan while they slash our food banks is a recipe for disaster.”

    The proposed SNAP cuts would be a blow to Capital Region food banks which have already been hit hard by Trump’s funding freezes and canceled payments. Earlier this year, the USDA canceled $1 billion in food assistance for organizations to purchase locally grown food. USDA programs provide food banks, schools, and other organizations with federal support to purchase local food products from NY farms.

    The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York has already had 27 tractor-trailers of food canceled, which is nearly 1 million pounds meant to feed Capital Region families. That’s nearly 800,000 meals, and the food bank expects to lose over 200 tractor-trailers over the next year. 80% of this food goes to pantries and soup kitchens like CONSERNS-U in Rensselaer. The food bank also works with religious leaders like Catholic Charities to distribute food to those who need it most.

    Schumer said these proposed cuts will limit food banks’ ability to keep shelves stocked as more people have been forced to rely on food banks to feed their families. Food bank workers and religious leaders across Upstate New York are concerned about the impact of potential cuts to SNAP on the people they serve, and farmers are worried there will be nowhere to sell their food if SNAP funding levels drop.

    “No matter which way you slice it, this Congressional Republican plan will screw Capital Region families, food banks and farmers from farm to table. We need everyone to stand up to these cuts that would take away food from our neighbors in need,” added Schumer.

    “When federal nutrition programs are cut, it’s not just a single plate that goes empty — it’s millions,” said Tom Nardacci, CEO of the Regional Food Bank. “Without federal support, community organizations simply can’t fill the growing gap. Slashing SNAP or canceling USDA food deliveries doesn’t just reduce access — it clears the table entirely for seniors, children, veterans, and families in every community in this country. We appreciate Senator Schumer fighting to save these important programs.”

    “Cutting or reducing budgets for food safety net programs is the exact opposite of what is needed to ensure New Yorkers don’t go hungry,” said Natasha Pernicka, Executive Director for The Food Pantries for the Capital District. “Any reductions to current SNAP will continue to exacerbate the growing strain on our food pantry system. We should be doing much more to help our food-insecure communities, not less.”

    Proposed rollbacks to the country’s most widely utilized nutrition assistance program would strain budgets for Capital Region families. Schumer said decimating funding for SNAP right as costs at grocery stores across the country are skyrocketing will hit the Capital Region hard. According to the New York State Community Action Association, more than 12% of people in Rensselaer County live in poverty, including nearly 20% of children. According to No Kid Hungry, over half of New Yorkers reported going into debt in the past year due to rising food costs, with over 60% of families with children.

    SNAP not only supplements families’ food budgets, it has also generated great economic benefits for New York State and NY-20 specifically. According to the National Grocers Association, grocery stores across New York State sold over $2.1 billion in groceries to people using SNAP benefits, including $99.3 million in NY-20. This created more than 18,500 New York jobs in the grocery industry, including 876 in NY-20, and generated more than $820.8 million in grocery industry wages, including $38.7 million in NY-20.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: New lien rules support B.C. service providers

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    New rules will make it easier for businesses to collect debts for services they provide to repair, store or transport goods.

    The new Commercial Liens Act comes into force on June 30, 2025, creating one clear set of lien rules for anyone who repairs, stores or transports goods. It replaces a patchwork of outdated laws, which created different rules for different services.

    The change reduces risks and costs, meaning service providers will be less likely to lose their liens and the payment that liens secure. Updated rules and processes that are easier to understand benefit businesses and their customers.

    Once in force, the act gives service providers flexibility by allowing them to keep possession of goods or to register the lien in B.C.’s Personal Property Registry. This allows owners to keep using their vehicle or equipment to make money and pay off the debt. It means that liens can be registered on big items that cannot be easily moved or stored.

    The Personal Property Registry, an online system that tracks legal claims on personal property, will be updated on June 30 to so that commercial liens can be registered.

    The changes will also make it easier to enforce liens without going to court, which helps businesses get paid and cuts legal costs.

    The act replaces the Repairers Lien Act, Warehouse Lien Act and Livestock Lien Act. Any existing liens under those acts will continue as commercial liens.

    The changes respond to the B.C. Law Institute’s recommendation to follow Saskatchewan’s lead in adopting the Uniform Liens Act. It uses similar rules used by secured lenders across Canada to collect on loans against personal property.

    This brings B.C. closer to the goal of having one set of lien rules across Canada so businesses that provide services in different provinces do not have to keep track of different rules.

    Learn More:

    For more information about B.C.’s Personal Property Registry, visit: https://www.bcregistry.gov.bc.ca/en-CA/ppr-marketing

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Spring Seeding Underway In Saskatchewan

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Released on May 12, 2025

    In the wake of recent warmer weather and dryer conditions, the public is reminded that agriculture producers and equipment are back in the field as seeding operations are underway in earnest across Saskatchewan.

    The first weekly Crop Report of the 2025 growing season, published on May 8, indicates that seeding progress is presently at 18 per cent across the province, well ahead of both the five-year average (10 per cent) and the 10-year average (12 per cent). 

    “Producers have wasted no time getting into the field and making a lot of progress in the past few weeks, and we should keep in mind that this work will only ramp up in the days ahead,” Agriculture Minister Daryl Harrison said. “Their tenacity, their innovative nature, and their work ethic extends across the entire agriculture industry and I want to say thank you to the farmers and ranchers of Saskatchewan for everything you do.”

    Saskatchewan drivers are encouraged to watch for farm machinery they may encounter moving along our highways and roads and to be mindful of this equipment and be patient for the safety of everyone.

    The quality of information in the Crop Report issued by the Ministry of Agriculture would not be achievable without the essential network of volunteers who contribute to it. More than 200 people across the province complete a short survey each week to share what they see and hear in their rural municipalities. Anyone interested in helping by becoming a volunteer crop reporter can contact the Ministry of Agriculture or the nearest local regional office to find out more.

    For a complete weekly summary of the Crop Report, please visit: www.saskatchewan.ca/crop-report. You can also follow the 2025 Crop Report on X at @SKAgriculture.  

    -30-

    For more information, contact:

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warren, Booker, Nadler Press Pepsi on Potentially Illegal Price Discrimination Against Small, Independently-Owned Grocery Stores

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
    May 12, 2025
    “Charging discriminatory, high prices to smaller, independent retailers harms those retailers’ ability to compete, and often forces consumers to endure unfair price increases.”
    “American families across the country continue to struggle to afford groceries, and enforcement of the [Robinson-Patman Act] is part of the solution to help promote competition throughout the food supply chain and ease their financial burden.”
    Text of Letter (PDF)
    Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), along with Representative Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) wrote to Ramon Laguarta, CEO of PepsiCo, Inc. (Pepsi) demanding an explanation for the company’s potentially illegal price discrimination against small and independent grocery stores. The lawmakers are the top Democrats on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, and House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrate State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, respectively. 
    Representatives Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Andre Carson (D-Ind.), Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Nikema Williams (D-Ga.) joined in signing the letter. 
    In recent months, Pepsi has faced legal action from convenience stores and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a regulator charged with enforcing federal consumer protection laws and antitrust laws. In January 2025, the FTC sued Pepsi, accusing it of violating the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA), which prohibits sellers from engaging in anticompetitive price discrimination. The FTC claimed that for years, Pepsi has disadvantaged retailers – including local convenience stores – by consistently giving benefits and advantages, such as promotional payments, to a big-box store, while denying those same benefits to the store’s competitors.
    In February 2025, two small, family-owned convenience stores accused Pepsi and its subsidiary Frito-Lay of violating the RPA, claiming the corporation charged independent retailers more “for identical bags of snack chips” compared to what it charged chain stores. The plaintiffs claimed they were charged as much as 50 percent more for those goods, and that the “discriminatory pricing” forced them to pass on the higher costs to consumers. 
    “The Robinson-Patman Act is an important tool for the FTC to combat illegal price discrimination and concentration, and to provide a level playing field to all businesses…Charging discriminatory, high prices to smaller, independent retailers harms those retailers’ ability to compete, and often forces consumers to endure unfair price increases,” wrote the lawmakers. 
    The RPA forbids sellers from charging competing buyers different prices for the same goods when the price discrimination may lessen or harm competition. The law also prohibits special promotional payments, discounts, rebates, allowances, or services to one buyer unless they are made available to all competing buyers.
    “As food prices remain sky-high, the FTC should continue to enforce the RPA to promote fair competition in the food industry,” urged the lawmakers. 
    The bicameral coalition asked Pepsi to explain, by May 25, 2025, its pricing strategies, any discrepancies between what it charges chain retailers and small, independent retailers, how these price discrepancies affect shopping options for consumers, and the company’s lobbying efforts to refute price discrimination allegations.  
    As a champion for American consumers and a secure and healthy economy, Senator Warren has engaged in oversight of corporations for unfairly increasing prices for consumers. She has also been calling for more competition and stronger enforcement of antitrust laws to bring down prices for families: 
    In May 2025, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Jim Banks (R-Ind.) applauded the Department of Justice’s ongoing investigation into potential anticompetitive practices by major egg producers and urged the agency to continue its thorough investigation as egg prices continue to rise.
    In January 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) led 19 of their colleagues, writing to President Donald Trump, pushing him to take meaningful steps to lower the prices of eggs and other groceries—a problem he largely ignored during his entire first week in office.
    In November 2024, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) led their colleagues in writing to Chair of the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan, and Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, urging them to investigate Albertsons and other major grocery chains for predatory practices that could have violated federal laws.
    In October 2024, Senators Elizabeth Warren led a letter to President and Chief Executive Officer of McDonald’s, Chris Kempczinski, pushing for more information on McDonald’s pricing decisions as fast food prices continue to increase, outpacing inflation and squeezing customers.
    In October 2024, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, along with Representatives Jim McGovern and Ayanna Pressley, sent a letter to Frans Muller, CEO of Ahold Delhaize—parent company of Stop & Shop—demanding an explanation for its potential use of pricing algorithms is leading to price gouging, resulting in higher prices in minority and working class communities in Massachusetts.
    On May 3, 2024, during a hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, & Urban Affairs, Senator Warren called out food industry price gouging and urged action to combat unfair pricing practices.
    On March 28, 2024, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Representative Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Penn.) led a group of 14 lawmakers in a letter to FTC Chair Lina Khan urging the agency to revive enforcement of the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA), a critical tool to promote fair competition in the food industry. 
    On February 28, 2024, Senator Warren joined Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa.) in introducing the Shrinkflation Prevention Act to crack down on corporations that deceive consumers by selling smaller sizes of their products without lowering prices.
    On February 15, 2024, Senators Warren, Baldwin, Casey, and U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) reintroduced the Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2024, which would protect consumers and prohibit corporate price gouging by authorizing the FTC and state attorneys general to enforce a federal ban against grossly excessive price increases.
    In December 2023, Senator Warren urged the FTC to block the Kroger-Albertsons merger, which would give the five largest food retail companies control of 55 percent of all grocery sales, allowing them to further control and ultimately raise consumer prices, while also reducing job competition, decreasing wages, and decreasing the bargaining power of organized labor.
    In November 2023, Senator Warren called out TransDigm for its refusal to provide cost and pricing information needed to prevent price gouging of taxpayers and the Department of Defense.
    Senator Warren repeatedly urged the Biden administration to closely scrutinize other potentially anticompetitive mergers that could lead to higher prices for consumers and accelerate industry consolidation. She has led letters about the proposed mergers of Frontier and Spirit airlines, JetBlue and Spirit Airlines, Sanderson-Wayne, WarnerMedia-Discovery, and Amazon-MGM.
    In March 2022, Senator Warren introduced the Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act to help stomp out rampant industry consolidation that allows companies to raise consumer prices and mistreat workers. The bill would ban the biggest, most anticompetitive mergers and give the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission the teeth to reject deals in the first instance without court orders and to break up harmful mergers.
    In February 2022, at a hearing, Senator Warren called out corporations for abusing their market power to raise consumer prices and boost profits.
    That same month, Senator Warren requested the Department of Justice to take aggressive action against corporations violating antitrust laws to hike prices for consumers.
    In January 2022, Senator Warren questioned Federal Reserve nominee Lael Brainard about market concentration and price gouging driving inflation.
    At a January 2022 hearing, Senator Warren pressed Fed Chair Jerome Powell on the role of corporate concentration in driving up prices for consumers during his renomination hearing to be Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
    In a New York Times op-ed published in April 2020, Senator Warren urged Congress to focus on cracking down on price gouging in its ongoing effort to address the impact of the coronavirus pandemic.
    In March 2020, Senator Warren joined her colleagues in urging the FTC to use its full authority to prevent abusive price gouging on consumer health products during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

    MIL OSI USA News