Category: Economy

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Nigeria’s plastic bottle collectors turn waste into wealth: survey sheds light on their motivation

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Solaja Mayowa Oludele, Lecturing, Olabisi Onabanjo University

    Plastic waste in Nigeria presents a dual challenge: cleaning up environmental pollution, and tapping into its economic potential.

    Many countries worldwide face similar challenges. India, for one, has chosen policies that give producers of plastic the responsibility to manage their waste. Rwanda has banned single-use plastic and promoted recycling initiatives led by communities.

    These approaches show it’s possible to address plastic waste issues while fostering economic opportunities.




    Read more:
    Nigeria’s plastic ban: why it’s good and how it can work


    In Nigeria, informal collectors of plastic bottle waste are central to achieving both of these goals. They turn waste into monetary value.

    Previous research has highlighted the environmental and economic benefits of collecting plastic bottle waste. There’s been less attention on what shapes perceptions of waste collection as a business, particularly in Nigeria.

    This article explores that gap, looking at the socio-cultural, economic and environmental influences on those perceptions.

    I am a researcher in the areas of plastic waste management, environmental governance and sustainable development. My work includes studying homes made from recycled plastic bottles in sustainable community-based housing projects.

    Here I’ll be drawing from an exploratory survey conducted in the Ijebu area of Ogun State, Nigeria. Using a questionnaire, we surveyed 86 participants who had at least five years of experience in the plastic waste industry.

    The study identified factors like education, family size, religion, gender, age, and economic dynamics as relevant to participation in the business of plastic bottle waste collection.

    Understanding these influences might help the government to target policies.




    Read more:
    Nigeria is the world’s 2nd biggest plastic polluter: expert insights into the crisis


    Education level and information

    Our study found that participants with higher education levels better understood the economic benefits of plastic waste collection as a systematic form of business. The less educated participants viewed waste collection more as a hand-to-mouth way of earning a living.

    Education programmes built into waste management campaigns could improve recognition of waste collection as a structured and profitable business opportunity and develop a business-like culture among the collectors.

    Parenthood, family size and financial obligations

    Family size was a factor affecting perceptions of plastic bottle waste collection as a business. People with large families saw waste collection as a feasible way to provide food, housing, education and other essentials.

    However, the association of waste collection with income instability highlights the need to formalise and stabilise the sector. Waste collection must be made into a sustainable and reliable business model.

    Religion and cultural norms

    Religion and cultural beliefs emerged as influences from our survey. This was evident in the responses of people who followed African traditional religions and Islam.

    These respondents viewed waste collection as financially feasible, aligning with religious teachings that emphasise resource management and stewardship. For example, Islamic teachings on israf (avoiding wastefulness) and zakat (charity) promote efficient resource use and economic activities that benefit communities.

    Similarly, African traditional religion often emphasises communal responsibility and the sustainable use of resources. These religious principles underscore the cultural acceptance of waste collection as both a practical and a morally guided economic activity.

    Other cultural norms, such as the value placed on communal responsibility and cooperation, also influenced attitudes towards waste collection. In communities with a strong tradition of collective action, where unity and mutual support are highly valued, waste collection is often viewed as a collaborative effort.

    These cultural norms reinforce the idea that waste collection is not just an individual task, but a collective duty that benefits the entire community.




    Read more:
    Informal waste management in Lagos is big business: policies need to support the trade


    Gender dynamics

    Gender plays a role in perception and practice in waste collection. Our survey found that male participants were more likely than female participants to perceive this activity as a business.

    As constrained as they are by lack of access to resources, women are involved in separating and marketing reusable items. Measures like microfinance could increase women’s engagement and business opportunities.

    This would empower women and make waste collection a more inclusive and sustainable business.

    Age and desire to be an entrepreneur

    Perceptions were influenced by age in our study. Younger individuals, up to 14 years old, viewed plastic bottle waste collection as a gateway to employment. Adults aged 33-38 used their experience to get better returns on the business.

    This age-based distinction suggests that different stages of life bring unique motivations and approaches to waste collection.

    Policy actions that support entrepreneurship at various life stages can promote long-term engagement in the industry. This will help formalise waste collection as a sustainable and profitable business.

    Economic and social factors

    Income opportunities affected participants’ experiences more than social factors. Oftentimes, this determined how long they stayed in the business. Those earning more were likelier to reinvest and grow, while lower earnings often led to disengagement or exit. This highlights the importance of financial incentives in shaping waste collection practices.

    Social connections also play a role in fostering collaboration. It facilitates teamwork and the exchange of ideas, and creates a sense of shared purpose and collective outcomes among participants.

    Strengthening these economic and social bonds can formalise plastic bottle waste collection, making it a more efficient and profitable business.




    Read more:
    Waste disposal in Nigeria is a mess: how Lagos can take the lead in sorting and recycling


    Looking ahead

    The study has significant application to Nigeria’s waste management industry. Adding education programmes into waste management programmes will improve people’s business skills.

    Well-coordinated intervention strategies can remove cultural and gender-specific barriers. For instance, cooperatives and microfinance may make waste collection more financially appealing.

    Strategies can also draw on cultural norms to increase community acceptance of waste collection and make it more inclusive.

    Samuel Oludare Awobona, a doctoral student at Osun State University, Osogbo, Nigeria, contributed to this research.

    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. Nigeria’s plastic bottle collectors turn waste into wealth: survey sheds light on their motivation – https://theconversation.com/nigerias-plastic-bottle-collectors-turn-waste-into-wealth-survey-sheds-light-on-their-motivation-247819

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Valadao Works to Lower Central Valley Energy Costs

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman David G. Valadao (California)

    WASHINGTON – Congressman David Valadao (CA-22) sent a letter alongside Reps. Vince Fong (CA-20), Doug LaMalfa (CA-01), and Tom McClintock (CA-05) to applaud the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) decision to rescind the 2012 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) and BLM.

    “Rescinding CalGem’s memorandum of understanding with BLM is a critical step toward restoring domestic oil production in the Central Valley,” said Congressman Valadao. “Kern County alone has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in local revenue and thousands of good-paying jobs because Sacramento bureaucrats refuse to issue permits in a timely and transparent way. By getting rid of this unnecessary red tape, we can get production back on track, lower energy costs for Valley families, and bring much-needed investment back to our communities.”

    “It is critical that the 2012 MOU between CalGEM and Bureau of Land Management be rescinded as a vital step toward restoring California’s energy production,” said Congressman Fong. “This decision removes barriers to needed energy production, reduces costs for families, strengthens economic stability, and reaffirms our commitment to American energy dominance. By streamlining permits and restoring the Bureau of Land Management’s authority over federal lands, we can unlock California’s energy potential, support good-paying jobs, and ensure affordable energy for families across our state.”

    “Under Governor Newsom, California has waged a war on oil production, hurting the economy in Kern County and threatening our ability to have affordable and reliable energy,” said Congressman LaMalfa. “Under the 2012 MOU between CalGEM and BLM, the state has been able to obstruct oil and gas production on Federal lands. This is completely unacceptable. Luckily, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum understands how this MOU is an obstacle to achieving energy dominance. I want to thank him for rescinding this MOU and allowing California’s oil and gas business to operate on Federal lands without interference from Governor Newsom.”

    Background:

    Oil production on federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plays a key role in California’s energy supply. While BLM continues to approve new drilling permits, CalGem now insists on a second, state-level permitting process, even though federal law does not give them authority over federal land. Over the last 15 years, BLM has gradually allowed CalGem to delay and influence permits through informal agreements—not through official law or policy change. This was accomplished through informal practices and agreements, not through statutory changes. As a result, more than 100 BLM-approved permits are now stuck, waiting for unnecessary approval from CalGEM.

    Read the full letter here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Pope Francis and Laudato Si’: an ecological turning point for the Catholic Church

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Bernard Laurent, Professeur, EM Lyon Business School

    In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis called for a radical break with consumerist lifestyles. Ricardo Perna/Shutterstock

    On May 24, 2015, Pope Francis signed his encyclical Laudato Si’ – “Praise be to you” in medieval Italian. This letter to Roman Catholic bishops was no half measure: it took many Catholics by surprise with its uncompromising conclusions and call for an in-depth transformation of our lifestyles. In France, it managed to bring together both conservative currents – such as the Courant pour une écologie humaine (Movement for a Human Ecology), created in 2013 – and more open-minded Catholic intellectuals such as Gaël Giraud, a Jesuit and author of Produire plus, polluer moins : l’impossible découplage ? (Produce more, Pollute Less: the Impossible Decoupling?).

    The Pope was taking a cue from his predecessors. Benedict XVI, John Paul II and Paul VI had also expressed concern about the dramatic effects of an abusive exploitation of nature on humanity:

    “Man is suddenly becoming aware that by an ill-considered exploitation of nature he risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation.”

    What does Pope Francis’s encyclical teach us? And how does it reflect the Catholic Church’s vision, and his own?



    A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!


    The “green” pope

    In the text, Pope Francis describes a situation in which the environment is deteriorating rapidly:

    “There is […] pollution that affects everyone, caused by transport, industrial fumes, substances which contribute to the acidification of soil and water, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and agrotoxins in general.” (§-20)

    Laudato Si’ was published by the Vatican on June 18, 2015, a few months prior to the Paris climate conference. For the “green” pope, the aim was to raise public awareness around the challenges of global warming by creating a relational approach that included God, human beings and the Earth. It was the first time an encyclical had been devoted wholly to ecology.

    In it, the Pope voiced his concern about the effects of global warming:

    “Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It creates a vicious circle which aggravates the situation even more, affecting the availability of essential resources like drinking water, energy and agricultural production in warmer regions, and leading to the extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity.” (§-24)

    Criticizing a “technocratic paradigm”

    Since Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, the various social encyclicals have consistently rejected the liberal idea of a society solely regulated by the smooth functioning of the market. The French sociologist of religion Émile Poulat summed up the Church’s position perfectly in 1977 in his book Église contre bourgeoisie. Introduction au devenir du catholicisme actuel, in which he writes that the Church “never agreed to abandon the running of the world to the blind laws of economics.”

    In 2015, Pope Francis rejected technical solutions that would not truly be useful, as well as the belief in the redeeming virtues of a self-regulating market. He accused “the technocratic paradigm” of dominating humankind by subordinating the economic and political spheres to its logic (§-101). His comments are reminiscent of the unjustly forgotten French Protestant philosopher Jacques Ellul and his idea of a limitless “self-propulsion” of technology, which has become the alpha and omega of our societies.

    For Jacques Ellul, technology is anything but neutral since it represents genuine power driven by its own movement.
    Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

    The pope’s charge against the supposed virtues of the market was spectacular. Among others, he criticized the following:

    • overconsumption in developed countries:

    “Since the market tends to promote extreme consumerism in an effort to sell its products, people can easily get caught up in a whirlwind of needless buying and spending.” (§-203);

    • the glorification of profit and a self-regulating market:

    “Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems.” (§-109);

    • the hypertrophy of speculative finance:

    “Politics must not be subject to the economy, nor should the economy be subject to the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy.” (§-189);

    • the unequal distribution of wealth in the world:

    “In fact, the deterioration of the environment and of society affects the most vulnerable people on the planet: […] the gravest effects of all attacks on the environment are suffered by the poorest.” (§-48);

    • the unequal levels of development between countries, leading Francis to speak of an “ecological debt” owed by rich countries to the least developed ones (§-51).

    Social justice and shrinking growth

    In Francis’s words, the goals of saving the planet and social justice go hand in hand. His approach is in keeping with the work of the [economist Louis-Joseph Lebret, a Dominican, who in 1941 founded the association Économie et humanisme. Father Lebret wanted to put the economy back at the service of humankind, and work with the least economically advanced countries by championing an approach based on the virtues of local communities and regional planning.

    Pope Francis, for his part, is calling for a radical break with the consumerist lifestyles of rich countries, while focusing on the development of the poorest nations (§-93). In Laudato Si’, he also wrote that developed countries’ responses seemed insufficient because of the economic interests at stake (§-54).

    This brings us back to the principle of the universal destination of goods – the organizing principle of property defended by the Catholic Church’s social doctrine, which demands that goods be distributed in such a way as to enable every human being to live in dignity.

    In addition to encouraging the necessary technical adjustments and sober individual practices, Pope Francis is urging citizens in developed countries not to be content with half measures deemed largely insufficient. Instead, he is calling for people to make lifestyle changes in line with the logic of slowing growth. The aim is to enable developing countries to emerge from poverty, while sparing the environment.

    “Given the insatiable and irresponsible growth produced over many decades, we need also to think of containing growth by setting some reasonable limits and even retracing our steps before it is too late. […] That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth.” (§ -193).

    Nearly 10 years on, Laudato Si’ resonates fully with our concerns. In the United States, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who both identify as Catholic, would be well advised to read it anew.

    Bernard Laurent is a member of the CFTC and of the IRES Scientific Council

    ref. Pope Francis and Laudato Si’: an ecological turning point for the Catholic Church – https://theconversation.com/pope-francis-and-laudato-si-an-ecological-turning-point-for-the-catholic-church-253977

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Pope Francis and Laudato Si’: an ecological turning point for the Catholic Church

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Bernard Laurent, Professeur, EM Lyon Business School

    In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis called for a radical break with consumerist lifestyles. Ricardo Perna/Shutterstock

    On May 24, 2015, Pope Francis signed his encyclical Laudato Si’ – “Praise be to you” in medieval Italian. This letter to Roman Catholic bishops was no half measure: it took many Catholics by surprise with its uncompromising conclusions and call for an in-depth transformation of our lifestyles. In France, it managed to bring together both conservative currents – such as the Courant pour une écologie humaine (Movement for a Human Ecology), created in 2013 – and more open-minded Catholic intellectuals such as Gaël Giraud, a Jesuit and author of Produire plus, polluer moins : l’impossible découplage ? (Produce more, Pollute Less: the Impossible Decoupling?).

    The Pope was taking a cue from his predecessors. Benedict XVI, John Paul II and Paul VI had also expressed concern about the dramatic effects of an abusive exploitation of nature on humanity:

    “Man is suddenly becoming aware that by an ill-considered exploitation of nature he risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation.”

    What does Pope Francis’s encyclical teach us? And how does it reflect the Catholic Church’s vision, and his own?



    A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!


    The “green” pope

    In the text, Pope Francis describes a situation in which the environment is deteriorating rapidly:

    “There is […] pollution that affects everyone, caused by transport, industrial fumes, substances which contribute to the acidification of soil and water, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and agrotoxins in general.” (§-20)

    Laudato Si’ was published by the Vatican on June 18, 2015, a few months prior to the Paris climate conference. For the “green” pope, the aim was to raise public awareness around the challenges of global warming by creating a relational approach that included God, human beings and the Earth. It was the first time an encyclical had been devoted wholly to ecology.

    In it, the Pope voiced his concern about the effects of global warming:

    “Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It creates a vicious circle which aggravates the situation even more, affecting the availability of essential resources like drinking water, energy and agricultural production in warmer regions, and leading to the extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity.” (§-24)

    Criticizing a “technocratic paradigm”

    Since Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, the various social encyclicals have consistently rejected the liberal idea of a society solely regulated by the smooth functioning of the market. The French sociologist of religion Émile Poulat summed up the Church’s position perfectly in 1977 in his book Église contre bourgeoisie. Introduction au devenir du catholicisme actuel, in which he writes that the Church “never agreed to abandon the running of the world to the blind laws of economics.”

    In 2015, Pope Francis rejected technical solutions that would not truly be useful, as well as the belief in the redeeming virtues of a self-regulating market. He accused “the technocratic paradigm” of dominating humankind by subordinating the economic and political spheres to its logic (§-101). His comments are reminiscent of the unjustly forgotten French Protestant philosopher Jacques Ellul and his idea of a limitless “self-propulsion” of technology, which has become the alpha and omega of our societies.

    For Jacques Ellul, technology is anything but neutral since it represents genuine power driven by its own movement.
    Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

    The pope’s charge against the supposed virtues of the market was spectacular. Among others, he criticized the following:

    • overconsumption in developed countries:

    “Since the market tends to promote extreme consumerism in an effort to sell its products, people can easily get caught up in a whirlwind of needless buying and spending.” (§-203);

    • the glorification of profit and a self-regulating market:

    “Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems.” (§-109);

    • the hypertrophy of speculative finance:

    “Politics must not be subject to the economy, nor should the economy be subject to the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy.” (§-189);

    • the unequal distribution of wealth in the world:

    “In fact, the deterioration of the environment and of society affects the most vulnerable people on the planet: […] the gravest effects of all attacks on the environment are suffered by the poorest.” (§-48);

    • the unequal levels of development between countries, leading Francis to speak of an “ecological debt” owed by rich countries to the least developed ones (§-51).

    Social justice and shrinking growth

    In Francis’s words, the goals of saving the planet and social justice go hand in hand. His approach is in keeping with the work of the [economist Louis-Joseph Lebret, a Dominican, who in 1941 founded the association Économie et humanisme. Father Lebret wanted to put the economy back at the service of humankind, and work with the least economically advanced countries by championing an approach based on the virtues of local communities and regional planning.

    Pope Francis, for his part, is calling for a radical break with the consumerist lifestyles of rich countries, while focusing on the development of the poorest nations (§-93). In Laudato Si’, he also wrote that developed countries’ responses seemed insufficient because of the economic interests at stake (§-54).

    This brings us back to the principle of the universal destination of goods – the organizing principle of property defended by the Catholic Church’s social doctrine, which demands that goods be distributed in such a way as to enable every human being to live in dignity.

    In addition to encouraging the necessary technical adjustments and sober individual practices, Pope Francis is urging citizens in developed countries not to be content with half measures deemed largely insufficient. Instead, he is calling for people to make lifestyle changes in line with the logic of slowing growth. The aim is to enable developing countries to emerge from poverty, while sparing the environment.

    “Given the insatiable and irresponsible growth produced over many decades, we need also to think of containing growth by setting some reasonable limits and even retracing our steps before it is too late. […] That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth.” (§ -193).

    Nearly 10 years on, Laudato Si’ resonates fully with our concerns. In the United States, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who both identify as Catholic, would be well advised to read it anew.

    Bernard Laurent is a member of the CFTC and of the IRES Scientific Council

    ref. Pope Francis and Laudato Si’: an ecological turning point for the Catholic Church – https://theconversation.com/pope-francis-and-laudato-si-an-ecological-turning-point-for-the-catholic-church-253977

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Threatening diversity, threatening growth: the business effects of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans agendas

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Matteo Winkler, Professeur associé en droit et fiscalité, HEC Paris Business School

    Recent months have seen a dramatic shift in US policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). These changes carry deep economic consequences. President Donald Trump’s executive orders aim to ban DEI initiatives in federal agencies and contractors, and private companies have felt pressure to weaken or drop their DEI programmes. Trump has framed what was once a corporate safeguard against discrimination as “illegal and immoral”, marking a stark reversal in legal and business norms. Federal judges have blocked some of Trump’s orders, or elements of them, and some legal processes are ongoing.

    Transgender rights have become a lightning rod in this shifting landscape. The barrage of federal directives seeks to challenge – or outright eliminate – protections in areas ranging from health care to education to the military. Beyond the immediate harm to trans individuals, these policies pose threats to multinational companies that have long defended inclusive workplace values. Their leaders must now navigate a cultural minefield where staying silent risks public backlash, while openly supporting trans employees can invite legal and political complications. The business repercussions of this moral issue could affect everything from brand reputation to talent retention.


    A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

    The economic imperative of DEI initiatives

    There is a growing ensemble of research suggesting that DEI policies are not just nice-to-have but a corporate imperative. This year, the World Economic Forum reported that organizations that include DEI in their core business strategies improve performance, innovation and employee satisfaction. These findings are in line with other studies, which have consistently demonstrated that inclusive workplaces not only attract top talent but perform better financially and have higher returns on assets and net income.

    With regard to people identifying as LGBTI+, a 2024 report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development highlighted that inclusive policies enable LGBTI+ individuals to achieve their full employment and productivity potential, benefiting both their well-being and society at large. Moreover, according to Open for Business, a think tank whose mission is making a case for LGBTQ+ inclusion in private and public settings, companies with “larger LGBTQ+ workforce benefit from diverse perspectives but also foster environments where innovation and productivity thrive”. It has also been found that human rights violations against LGBTI+ people diminish economic output at the micro level, suggesting that inclusive societies are more likely to experience robust economic growth.




    À lire aussi :
    Business schools are facing challenges to their diversity commitments. They must reinforce them to train leaders effectively


    Research has also shown that trans-inclusive business practices have long been associated with innovation, employee satisfaction and market competitiveness. Companies that provide gender-neutral bathroom access, introduce the inclusive use of pronouns and support employees’ gender transitions have been proven to foster relational authenticity in the workplace.

    Discrimination and exclusion, by contrast, not only harm individuals but also impede economic growth by limiting the available talent pool and reducing overall productivity. In September 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported that “laws and policies designed to restrict or prevent access or supports for transgender and nonbinary people” endanger LGBTQ+ individuals and their allies, leading to increased fear, lack of safety and a rise in anti-LGBTQ+ violence. More generally, these laws and policies can also deter businesses from investing in regions perceived as discriminatory. Also in September, the Movement Advancement Project identified that the lack of legal protection against discrimination contributes to economic instability for LGBTQ+ families, which can lead to wage gaps, job insecurity and reduced access to benefits, ultimately contributing to reduced consumer spending and lower economic participation.

    Language targeting trans rights and visibility

    Despite the benefits of DEI initiatives, the current US administration has sought to enact several policies aimed at dismantling them, resulting in organizations, both public and private, to suspend funding for DEI and outreach programmes. In Trump’s executive orders, anything – policy, programme or initiative – related to or benefitting trans people in access to healthcare, academic research, scientific inquiry, school policies, personal safety, participation in sports, and military service is now rejected as “gender ideology extremism”.

    Targeting sports, education and the military is functional to an ideological battle aimed at erasing spaces where trans people are most vulnerable. These spaces are also formative arenas in shaping national identity and the public perception of DEI initiatives. When they become politicized, they can also affect how businesses frame their values, manage risks and engage with their different stakeholders.




    À lire aussi :
    Anti-DEI guidance from Trump administration misinterprets the law and guts educators’ free speech rights


    The anti-trans executive orders begin by redefining the term “sex” for interpretations of federal law. According to the text of “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to Federal Government”, a person is either male or female, which is determined by their reproductive cells at conception – a definition in which biology takes precedence over individual rights and legal protections. “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” weaponizes this “biological truth” by threatening to cut off federal funds to schools that allow trans athletes to participate in them. “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” equates being transgender with medical or physical incapacity despite no evidence suggesting that trans service members negatively impact military readiness. “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” seeks to prevent schools from teaching about gender identity, which would strip trans youth of critical support systems. And “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” describes gender-affirming healthcare as “destructive”.

    The ripple effects of this anti-trans rhetoric extend into the private sector, compelling businesses to reevaluate their DEI strategies in fear of backlash or scrutiny. Even before the last US presidential election, companies such as Ford, Harley-Davidson and Lowe’s withdrew their participation in the Corporate Equality Index, a national benchmarking tool on corporate policies and practices related to LGBTQ+ workplace equality. In the wake of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans orders, organizers of various Pride events in the US and Canada learned that some corporations, including longtime sponsors, had decided not to fund them. And according to the New York Times, some companies erased language and terms related to DEI from annual reports filed this year, including Dow Chemical, whose reference to LGBTQ+ employee resource groups disappeared from its public documents.

    Navigating between inclusive values and anti-DEI pressure

    Three patterns seem to be emerging on how companies are navigating the tension between values that are inclusive of LGBTI+ people and the growing pressure to scrub DEI commitments within the US context. For the moment, these patterns do not reflect formalized strategies but adaptive responses to an environment that has grown in complexity in a very short time. Some corporate actions reflect deliberate strategy aimed at protecting global consistency, while others appear more reactive, shaped by local market pressures.

    The first pattern involves establishing a sort of internal firewall between US and international operations. Banco Santander provides a clear example of this approach. Thus far, it has maintained global DEI commitments such as tying executive bonuses to increased gender equality in leadership. This group stated that such targets would not be applied to countries where governmental policies target DEI. In this pattern, DEI programmes are maintained abroad but are dismantled in the US to minimize political exposure in the latter.

    The second approach, observed at accounting firm Deloitte, is a cultural split between US operations and those overseas: while entities under the same global brand may still share data, practices, or strategic frameworks internally, they now adopt publicly distinct positions on DEI. Deloitte UK has remained vocal on its DEI commitments, highlighting the cultural and political fault lines that multinationals must now navigate.

    The third approach is a retraction of DEI altogether. Target offers a striking example. In 2023, under increased political and consumer pressure, the company rolled back some of its LGBTQ+ inclusion efforts by reducing the number of Pride-related items for sale. In 2025, four days after Trump’s inauguration, Target announced it would “end its three-year DEI goals”, cease reporting to the Corporate Equality Index and “end a program focused on carrying more products from Black- or minority-owned businesses”, as reported by CNBC. The moves resulted in considerable public criticism, and more notably, coincided with a marked drop in foot traffic – “nearly 5 million fewer visits” over a four-week period – revealing reputational and financial risks associated with the abandoning of DEI policies. By contrast, bulk retailer Costco, which said three days after the inauguration that its shareholders voted against a proposal seen as unfriendly to the company’s DEI programmes, “saw nearly 7.7 million more visits” during that same stretch.




    À lire aussi :
    A boycott campaign fuels tension between Black shoppers and Black-owned brands – evoking the long struggle for ‘consumer citizenship’


    In light of the evidence, it is clear that undermining DEI initiatives poses substantial risks – not just to human dignity, but to economic competitiveness. Businesses and policymakers must recognize that DEI is not merely a social or ethical imperative but a core strategy for growth and innovation. By fostering environments where all individuals can thrive, we unlock the full potential of our workforce and ensure sustainable economic growth.

    Conversely, discriminatory policies contribute to social instability, brain drain and economic stagnation. In the United States, the rollback of DEI initiatives and the marginalization of transgender individuals threaten to erode the nation’s ability to uphold human rights and maintain business competitiveness. History demonstrates that exclusionary policies ultimately harm societies rather than strengthen them. The question remains whether the US can afford to sacrifice social stability and economic growth in pursuit of ideological battles. The evidence suggests that it cannot.

    Matteo Winkler is a member of the Open for Business Academic Committee. He has received funding from the HEC Foundation.

    Marcelle Laliberté is a member of Women in Aerospace Europe and HEC We&Men, and a contributor to the UN`s High Advisory Board on Governing AI for Humanity.

    ref. Threatening diversity, threatening growth: the business effects of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans agendas – https://theconversation.com/threatening-diversity-threatening-growth-the-business-effects-of-trumps-anti-dei-and-anti-trans-agendas-255040

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: ‘Piracy’ to legitimacy: how companies like French ride-hailing platform Heetch can make their mark

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Maxime Massey, Docteur en Sciences de Gestion & Innovation – Chercheur affilié à la Chaire Improbable, ESCP Business School

    The 2024 arrest and subsequent release of activist Paul Watson, the founder of the NGO Sea Shepherd that fights to protect ocean biodiversity, highlighted a division between two opposing camps. There are those who want to stay true to the NGO’s DNA by continuing to practice strong activism against poaching states, and those who believe there is too much at stake in remaining confrontational and advocate instead for more measured actions to institutionalize the NGO. This opposition reflects the dilemma faced by many “pirate organizations,” a concept introduced by scholars Rudolph Durand and Jean-Philippe Vergne.

    What are pirate organizations?

    Pirate organizations are defined by three key characteristics.

    • They develop innovative activities by exploiting legal loopholes;

    • they defend a “public cause” to support neglected communities, who in turn support them;

    • by introducing innovations that address specific social needs, they disrupt monopolies and contribute to transforming economic and social systems.



    A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!


    However, to do these things effectively, pirate organizations must become legitimate. An organization is considered legitimate when its various audiences (customers, media, the state, etc.) perceive its actions as desirable according to prevailing values, norms and laws. Legitimacy is built through a process known as legitimation. For pirate organizations, this is particularly challenging, as they are often viewed as both illegal and illegitimate by the state and established industry players. These actors apply pressure to hinder legitimation. So how do pirate organizations build their legitimacy? We examined this question through the emblematic case of Heetch.

    A case study of a pirate organization

    Heetch is a French urban transport start-up launched in 2013 when its founders observed that “young people in Paris and its suburbs struggle to travel at night due to a lack of suitable options.” They decided to create a ride-hailing platform connecting private drivers with passengers.

    This business model, based on the principles of the “sharing economy,” encroached on the monopoly of taxis and the regulated sector of professional chauffeur-driven vehicles (VTCs). Despite challenges, Heetch gradually built its legitimacy through three distinct phases, responding to pressures in different ways.

    Stage 1: ‘clandestine pragmatism’ (2013-2015)

    When Heetch launched in 2013, a conflict was brewing in the urban transport sector. On one side, there were new applications for VTC services (such as Uber) and for private driver platforms (such as UberPop and Heetch); on the other, there were traditional taxis and their booking departments (such as G7). The latter, along with government authorities, began exerting pressure to shut down the apps, with Uber receiving most of the media attention.

    During this phase, Heetch adopted a strategy of “clandestine pragmatism.” The start-up avoided direct confrontations and stayed “under the radar” of the media. This approach is similar to “bootlegging” – concealing an innovative activity during its early stages. Heetch built a pragmatic legitimacy among its immediate audience using informal techniques such as word-of-mouth. However, its legitimacy remained limited, because it operated outside media scrutiny and without state approval.

    Stage 2: ‘subversive activism’ (2015-2017)

    In June 2015, taxi drivers organized massive protests against the “unfair competition” posed by new ride-hailing apps. The Paris police issued a ban on UberPop-like applications, including Heetch’s.

    While Uber shut down UberPop, Heetch exploited a legal loophole – its name was not explicitly mentioned in the ban – and continued operations. In response, the state cracked down on Heetch: around 100 drivers were placed in police custody and the founders were summoned to court, facing charges of “illegal facilitation of contact” with drivers, “complicity in unlawful taxi operations” and “misleading commercial practices.”

    Heetch reacted by engaging in “subversive activism.” The founders spoke out in the media to defend their service, emphasizing its public utility, particularly for young suburban residents needing nighttime mobility. The start-up generated buzz by releasing a satirical video featuring altered images of political figures in their youth. Heetch leveraged its pragmatic legitimacy, already established within its community, to gain media legitimacy among a broader audience of people, including journalists and policymakers. The organization gained public recognition, but also faced increasing legal battles.

    Stage 3: ‘tempered radicalism’ (2017-present)

    In March 2017, a court ruled against Heetch, deeming its operations illegal. Heetch temporarily suspended its service but relaunched two weeks later with a new business model employing professional drivers. Two months later, Heetch attempted to reintroduce private drivers, but, after facing additional legal action, it abandoned this approach after six months to focus exclusively on legal transportation services.

    During this phase, Heetch practised “tempered radicalism.” The company integrated into the system while continuing its “fight” in a more moderate manner, avoiding direct confrontation with the state and industry players. It adopted three key strategies:

    • compliance – respecting the law;

    • compromise – balancing its transportation service with its public mission;

    • manipulation – lobbying to influence regulations.

    Through this approach, Heetch secured regulatory legitimacy while strengthening its existing pragmatic and media legitimacy. The company was recognized by the French government and included in the French Tech 120 and Next 40 programmes for the country’s most promising start-ups. It also became the first ride-hailing platform to attain “mission-driven company” status.

    Is ‘piracy’ a growth accelerator?

    Ultimately, our study highlights the value of piracy as a strategy for kickstarting the growth of an organization that serves a public cause. By embracing this approach, a pirate organization can drive systemic change to address social or environmental challenges.

    That said, piracy carries an inherent risk: at some point, it will likely face a legitimacy crisis triggered by resistance from monopolies or public authorities. The recent struggles of Paul Watson serve as testament. As he aptly puts it: “You can’t change the world without making waves.”

    Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.

    ref. ‘Piracy’ to legitimacy: how companies like French ride-hailing platform Heetch can make their mark – https://theconversation.com/piracy-to-legitimacy-how-companies-like-french-ride-hailing-platform-heetch-can-make-their-mark-253079

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Cyberattacks: how companies can communicate effectively after being hit

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Paolo Antonetti, Professeur, EDHEC Business School

    In its latest annual publication, insurance group Hiscox surveyed more than 2,000 cybersecurity managers in eight countries including France. Two thirds of the companies in the survey reported having been the victim of a cyberattack between mid-August 2023 and September 2024, a 15% increase over the previous period. In terms of potential financial losses, Statista estimated that cyberattacks cost France up to €122 billion in 2024, compared to €89 in 2023 – a 37% rise.


    A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

    The main forms of cyberattacks on French businesses, the recommendations for how companies can protect themselves, and the technical and legal responses they can adopt are well documented.

    However, much less is known about appropriate communications and public relations responses to cyberattacks. The issues at stake are critical. When a company is the target of a cyberattack, should it systematically accept responsibility, or can it instead claim to be a victim to protect its reputation? A wrong answer can aggravate the situation and undermine the confidence of customers and investors.

    Positioning as a victim

    Our recent research questions the assumption that accepting causal responsibility should be the norm after a cyberattack: we show that positioning oneself as a victim can be more effective in limiting damage to one’s image – provided claims of victimhood are deployed intelligently.

    There is evidence that firms need a strategy to present themselves effectively as victims of cybercriminals. Some firms, such as T-Mobile and Equifax, have in the past paid compensation to consumers while refusing to accept any responsibility, essentially presenting themselves as victims.

    Similarly, the large French telecommunications operator Free presented itself as a victim when communicating about the large-scale cyberattack that affected its operations last October, which may have had an impact on its image. The UK’s TalkTalk initially framed itself as a victim of a cybercrime but was later criticized for its inadequate security measures.

    Victimhood and sympathy

    Clumsily declaring itself as the sole entity to blame or the sole victim of a cyberattack – which is what interests us here – can be risky and backfire on a company, damaging its credibility rather than protecting its reputation.

    When companies present themselves as victims of cybercrime, they can elicit sympathy from stakeholders. People tend to be more compassionate toward businesses that depict themselves as wronged rather than those that deny responsibility or shift blame. In essence, this strategy frames the organization as a target of external forces beyond its control, rather than as negligent or incompetent. It leverages a fundamental social norm – people’s instinctive tendency to support those they see as victims.

    But claims of victimhood must align with public expectations and the specific context of the breach. They should not be about shirking responsibility, but about acknowledging harm in a way that fosters understanding and trust. The following approaches and choices can help.

    • align with public perception

    The reactions of stakeholders often depend on their understanding of the situation. If the attack is perceived as an external and malicious act, it is crucial for a company to adopt a consistent stance by emphasizing that it itself has been a victim. But if internal negligence is proven, claiming victim status could be counterproductive. The swiftness of a company’s response, the level of transparency and the relative stance taken are all part of a good strategy.

    • express support for stakeholders

    Adopting a position of victimhood does not mean denying all responsibility or minimizing the consequences of an attack. The company must show that it takes the situation seriously by expressing empathy and commitment to affected stakeholders. It must pay particular attention to those affected inside the organization: a claim of victimhood should be part of an apology or a message expressing concern. An effective message must be sincere and oriented toward concrete solutions.

    • consider reputation

    We find that it is easier for companies to claim victimhood persuasively if they are perceived as virtuous. This reputation can be due to a positive track record in terms of corporate social responsibility or because they are a not-for-profit institution (e.g. a library, a university or a hospital). Virtuous victims generate sympathy and empathy, and this is also reflected after a cyberattack.

    • highlight the harmfulness and sophistication of the attack

    The results of our study also show that public acceptance of victim status is more effective when the cyberattack is perceived to be the work of highly competent malicious actors. It is also important for a company to persuade the public that the attack harmed the company, while keeping the main focus of the response on the public.

    • don’t complain

    It is essential to distinguish between legitimate claims of victim status and communication that could be perceived as an attempt to exonerate oneself. An overly plaintive tone could undermine a company’s credibility. The approach should be factual and constructive, focusing on the measures taken to overcome the crisis.

    • test reactions before communicating widely

    Companies’ responses to a cyberattack can vary depending on the context and the public. It is best to assess different approaches before embarking on large-scale communication. This can be done through internal tests, focus groups or targeted surveys. Subtle differences in the situation can cause important shifts in how the public perceives the breach and what the best response might be.

    Our study sheds light on a shift in public expectations about crisis management: in the age of ubiquitous cybercrime, responsibilities are often shared. Poorly managed communication after a cyberattack can lead to a lasting loss of trust and expose a company to increased legal risks. Claiming victim status effectively, with an empathetic and transparent approach, can help mitigate the impact of the crisis and preserve the organization’s reputation.


    This article was written with Ilaria Baghi (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia).

    Paolo Antonetti ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

    ref. Cyberattacks: how companies can communicate effectively after being hit – https://theconversation.com/cyberattacks-how-companies-can-communicate-effectively-after-being-hit-255061

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Difficult work arrangements force many women to stop breastfeeding early. Here’s how to prevent this

    Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Andini Pramono, Research officer, Department of Health Economics, Wellbeing and Society, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University

    Research shows that six months of exclusive breastfeeding, and continuing until two years old or beyond, provide multiple benefits for the baby and mother.

    It can prevent deaths both in infants and mothers – including in wealthy nations like the United States. It also benefits the global economy and the enviroment.

    However, after maternity leave ends, mothers returning to paid work face many challenges maintaining breastfeeding. This often leads mothers to stop breastfeeding their children before six months – the duration of exclusive breastfeeding recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and others.

    According to the WHO, less than half of babies under six months old worldwide are exclusively breastfed.

    In Indonesia, research shows 83% of mothers initiate breastfeeding, but only 57% are still breastfeeding at around six months. In Australia, 96% of mothers start breastfeeding, but then there is a rapid fall to only 39% by around three months and only 15% by around five months.

    Among the key reasons for low rates of exclusive breastfeeding are the difficult work conditions women face when they return to paid work.

    So how can governments and workplaces – especially in countries that have yet to do enough, like Indonesia and Australia – better support breastfeeding mothers, particularly at work?

    Half a billion reasons to change

    For more than a century, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has set global standards for maternity protection through the Maternity Protection Convention and accompanying recommendations, as well as the ILO Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, aiming to protect female workers’ rights.

    So far, only 66 member states have ratified at least one of the Maternity Protection Conventions, while 43 have ratified the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention. Unfortunately, Indonesia has not ratified either convention. So far, Australia has only ratified the family responsibilities convention.

    In some countries, protections are aligned with the ILO Conventions. For example, in Denmark and Norway, the governments offer maternity leave of at least 14 weeks. During leave, mothers’ earnings are protected at a rate of at least two-thirds of their pre-birth earnings. Public funds ensure this is done in a manner determined by national law and practice, so the employer is not solely responsible for the payment.

    A Canadian study highlights the proportion of mothers exclusively breastfeeding to six months increased by almost 40% when paid maternity leave was expanded from six to 12 months. At the same time, average breastfeeding duration increased by one month, from five to six months.

    Evidence shows paid maternity leave and providing an adequate lactation room at work both contribute positively to breastfeeding rates.

    Despite this, half a billion women globally still lack adequate maternity protections.

    For example, welfare reforms in the US encouraging new mothers’ return to work within 12 weeks led to a 16–18% reduction in breastfeeding initiation. It also saw a four to six week reduction in the time babies were breastfed.

    Indonesia and Australia aren’t doing enough

    Neither Indonesia or Australia are currently doing enough to meet the ILO’s maternity protection standards.

    In Indonesia, the 2003 Labour Law urges companies to give 12 weeks of paid maternity leave for women workers to support breastfeeding. Furthermore, the 2012 regulation on exclusive breastfeeding obligates workplace and public space management to provide a space or facility to breastfeed and express breast milk. However, the monitoring of its implementation is weak.

    In Australia, paid parental leave (PPL) policy supports parents who take time off from paid work to care for their young children.

    Eligible working mothers or primary carers are entitled to up to 20 weeks (or 22 weeks if the child is born or adopted from 1 July 2024) of government paid parental leave within the first two years of the birth or adoption of a child.

    In the Federal Budget announced on 15 May 2024, the Australian government has added payment of superannuation contributions to the parental leave package for births and adoptions on or after 1 July 2025. However, the PPL is a low amount, paid at the national minimum wage ($882.80 per week)].

    Some mothers can combine the government payment with additional paid leave from their employer. However in 2022-2023, only 63% of Australian employers offered this, leaving nearly half of new mothers with only minimum financial support.

    Unlike Indonesia, Australia has no legal requirement for employers to offer paid breastfeeding breaks in their workplace, so mothers can express and take home their breastmilk. This can badly impact women’s and children’s health.

    While Australia’s support for breastfeeding mothers is welcome, it’s still inadequate to meet the ILO’s international standard – particularly Australia’s low payment rate of government PPL (at the minimum wage, rather than two-thirds of previous earnings) and the lack of legislation for paid breastfeeding breaks.

    How employers and colleagues can help

    Globally, the barriers to maintain breastfeeding include not only lack of maternity leave duration and pay, but also unavailability of breastfeeding and breast pumping facilities at workplaces, sometimes unsupportive colleagues and supervisors, and lack of time at work to breastfeed or expressing breastmilk.

    Breastfeeding a baby should not preclude women from earning a living. In 2022, female workers were 39.5% of total workers globally, while in Australia and Indonesia they made up 47.4% and 39.5% respectively.

    An accessible facility or space for breastfeeding or breast pumping is vital to support breastfeeding working mothers.

    In Indonesia, a 2013 Ministry of Health regulation outlines the procedure for an employer to provide a space and facility for mothers to breastfeed and breast pump.

    The minimum specifications of this facility are described as a lockable, clean and quiet room, with a sink for washing, suitable temperature, lighting and flooring. While these specifications are technically mandatory, monitoring is weak, meaning if employers fail to meet the requirements there are no specific consequences.

    But a breastfeeding space alone is not enough. In many jobs, mothers cannot leave their tasks during working hours, even if there is a lactation room.

    Supportive employers need to regulate time and flexibility to breastfeed and express breastmilk, including providing flexible working arrangements and paid breastfeeding breaks during working hours. Supportive attitudes from co-workers and managers are also important.

    Suitable staff training on breastfeeding and policies supporting mothers, such as providing time and facility to express breastmilk in work hours, are crucial. Training on how to support co-worker can include anything from basic information breastfeeding, to what to say (or not say) with a breastfeeding co-worker.

    Access to supportive childcare is another issue globally.

    For those families who can access childcare, childcare centres can also help by:

    • encouraging and accommodating mothers to visit for breastfeeding
    • having written policies supporting breastfeeding
    • providing parents with resources on breastfeeding
    • and referring parents to community resources for breastfeeding support.

    Practical ways to support more families

    The Australian Breastfeeding Association has an accreditation program that helps workplaces to be breastfeeding-friendly. Workplace policies, including adequate time and space for pumping, are positively associated with longer breastfeeding duration.

    The program assesses workplaces for three aspects: time, space and supportive culture. This means, workplaces are encouraged to provide a special space and time for breastfeeding and breast pumping in a supportive culture and flexible working hours.

    Mothers should consider to prepare how to align breastfeeding with work early – during pregnancy. Start by discussing your breastfeeding goals with healthcare professionals and finding a baby-friendly hospital.

    Discuss your breastfeeding plan with your supervisor at work during your pregnancy, including finding out your maternity leave (paid and unpaid) entitlements. Also consider childcare arrangements that will work best for you with breastfeeding.

    For further information and support, you can find resources from local breastfeeding support groups, such as the Indonesian Breastfeeding Mothers Association and Australian Breastfeeding Association.

    Julie P. Smith is a qualified breastfeeding counselor and honorary member of the Australian Breastfeeding Association.

    Andini Pramono dan Liana Leach tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.

    ref. Difficult work arrangements force many women to stop breastfeeding early. Here’s how to prevent this – https://theconversation.com/difficult-work-arrangements-force-many-women-to-stop-breastfeeding-early-heres-how-to-prevent-this-211831

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Why the traditional college major may be holding students back in a rapidly changing job market

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By John Weigand, Professor Emeritus of Architecture and Interior Design, Miami University

    Rethinking the college major could help colleges better understand what employers and students need. Westend61/Getty Images

    Colleges and universities are struggling to stay afloat.

    The reasons are numerous: declining numbers of college-age students in much of the country, rising tuition at public institutions as state funding shrinks, and a growing skepticism about the value of a college degree.

    Pressure is mounting to cut costs by reducing the time it takes to earn a degree from four years to three.

    Students, parents and legislators increasingly prioritize return on investment and degrees that are more likely to lead to gainful employment. This has boosted enrollment in professional programs while reducing interest in traditional liberal arts and humanities majors, creating a supply-demand imbalance.

    The result has been increasing financial pressure and an unprecedented number of closures and mergers, to date mostly among smaller liberal arts colleges.

    To survive, institutions are scrambling to align curriculum with market demand. And they’re defaulting to the traditional college major to do so.

    The college major, developed and delivered by disciplinary experts within siloed departments, continues to be the primary benchmark for academic quality and institutional performance.

    This structure likely works well for professional majors governed by accreditation or licensure, or more tightly aligned with employment. But in today’s evolving landscape, reliance on the discipline-specific major may not always serve students or institutions well.

    As a professor emeritus and former college administrator and dean, I argue that the college major may no longer be able to keep up with the combinations of skills that cross multiple academic disciplines and career readiness skills demanded by employers, or the flexibility students need to best position themselves for the workplace.

    Students want flexibility

    The college curriculum may be less flexible now than ever.
    MoMo Productions/Digital Vision via Getty Images

    I see students arrive on campus each year with different interests, passions and talents – eager to stitch them into meaningful lives and careers.

    A more flexible curriculum is linked to student success, and students now consult AI tools such as ChatGPT to figure out course combinations that best position them for their future. They want flexibility, choice and time to redirect their studies if needed.

    And yet, the moment students arrive on campus – even before they apply – they’re asked to declare a major from a list of predetermined and prescribed choices. The major, coupled with general education and other college requirements, creates an academic track that is anything but flexible.

    Not surprisingly, around 80% of college students switch their majors at least once, suggesting that more flexible degree requirements would allow students to explore and combine diverse areas of interest. And the number of careers, let alone jobs, that college graduates are expected to have will only increase as technological change becomes more disruptive.

    As institutions face mounting pressures to attract students and balance budgets, and the college major remains the principal metric for doing so, the curriculum may be less flexible now than ever.

    How schools are responding

    The college major emerged as a response to an evolving workforce that prioritized specialized knowledge.
    Fuse/Corbia via Getty Images

    In response to market pressures, colleges are adding new high-demand majors at a record pace. Between 2002 and 2022, the number of degree programs nationwide increased by nearly 23,000, or 40%, while enrollment grew only 8%. Some of these majors, such as cybersecurity, fashion business or entertainment design, arguably connect disciplines rather than stand out as distinct. Thus, these new majors siphon enrollment from lower-demand programs within the institution and compete with similar new majors at competitor schools.

    At the same time, traditional arts and humanities majors are adding professional courses to attract students and improve employability. Yet, this adds credit hours to the degree while often duplicating content already available in other departments.

    Importantly, while new programs are added, few are removed. The challenge lies in faculty tenure and governance, along with a traditional understanding that faculty set the curriculum as disciplinary experts. This makes it difficult to close or revise low-demand majors and shift resources to growth areas.

    The result is a proliferation of under-enrolled programs, canceled courses and stretched resources – leading to reduced program quality and declining faculty morale.

    Ironically, under the pressure of declining demand, there can be perverse incentives to grow credit hours required in a major or in general education requirements as a way of garnering more resources or adding courses aligned with faculty interests. All of which continues to expand the curriculum and stress available resources.

    Universities are also wrestling with the idea of liberal education and how to package the general education requirement.

    Although liberal education is increasingly under fire, employers and students still value it.

    Students’ career readiness skills – their ability to think critically and creatively, to collaborate effectively and to communicate well – remain strong predictors of future success in the workplace and in life.

    Reenvisioning the college major

    Assuming the requirement for students to complete a major in order to earn a degree, colleges can also allow students to bundle smaller modules – such as variable-credit minors, certificates or course sequences – into a customizable, modular major.

    This lets students, guided by advisers, assemble a degree that fits their interests and goals while drawing from multiple disciplines. A few project-based courses can tie everything together and provide context.

    Such a model wouldn’t undermine existing majors where demand is strong. For others, where demand for the major is declining, a flexible structure would strengthen enrollment, preserve faculty expertise rather than eliminate it, attract a growing number of nontraditional students who bring to campus previously earned credentials, and address the financial bottom line by rightsizing curriculum in alignment with student demand.

    One critique of such a flexible major is that it lacks depth of study, but it is precisely the combination of curricular content that gives it depth. Another criticism is that it can’t be effectively marketed to an employer. But a customized major can be clearly named and explained to employers to highlight students’ unique skill sets.

    Further, as students increasingly try to fit cocurricular experiences – such as study abroad, internships, undergraduate research or organizational leadership – into their course of study, these can also be approved as modules in a flexible curriculum.

    It’s worth noting that while several schools offer interdisciplinary studies majors, these are often overprescribed or don’t grant students access to in-demand courses. For a flexible-degree model to succeed, course sections would need to be available and added or deleted in response to student demand.

    Several schools also now offer microcredentials– skill-based courses or course modules that increasingly include courses in the liberal arts. But these typically need to be completed in addition to requirements of the major.

    We take the college major for granted.

    Yet it’s worth noting that the major is a relatively recent invention.

    Before the 20th century, students followed a broad liberal arts curriculum designed to create well-rounded, globally minded citizens. The major emerged as a response to an evolving workforce that prioritized specialized knowledge. But times change – and so can the model.

    John Weigand does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Why the traditional college major may be holding students back in a rapidly changing job market – https://theconversation.com/why-the-traditional-college-major-may-be-holding-students-back-in-a-rapidly-changing-job-market-258383

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: AI is consuming more power than the grid can handle — nuclear might be the answer

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Goran Calic, Associate Profesor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship Leadership Chair, McMaster University

    New partnerships are forming between tech companies and power operators — ones that could reshape decades of misconceptions about nuclear energy.

    Last year, Meta (Facebook’s parent company) put out a call for nuclear proposals, Google agreed to buy new nuclear reactors from Kairos Power, Amazon partnered with Energy Northwest and Dominion Energy to develop nuclear energy and Microsoft committed to a 20-year deal to restart Unit 1 of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant.

    At the centre of these partnerships is artificial intelligence’s voracious appetite for electricity. One Google search uses about as much electricity as turning on a household light for 17 seconds. Asking a Generative AI model like ChatGPT a single question is equivalent to leaving that light on for 20 minutes.




    Read more:
    AI is bad for the environment, and the problem is bigger than energy consumption


    Having GenAI generate an image can draw about 6,250 times more electricity, roughly the energy of fully charging a smartphone, or enough to keep the same light bulb on for 87 consecutive days.

    The hundreds of millions of people now using AI have effectively added the equivalent of millions of new homes to the power grid. And demand is only growing. The challenge for tech companies is that few sources of electricity are well-suited to AI.

    The grid wasn’t ready for AI

    AI requires vast amounts of computational power running around the clock, often housed in energy-intensive data centres.

    Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind provide intermittent energy, meaning they don’t guarantee the constant power supply these data centres require. These centres must be online 24/7, even when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

    Fossil fuels can run continuously, but they carry their own risks. They have significant environmental impacts. Fuel prices can be unpredictable, as exemplified by the gas price spikes due to the war in Ukraine, and the long-term availability of fossil fuels is uncertain.

    Major tech companies like Google, Amazon and Microsoft say they are committed to eliminating CO2 emissions, making fossil fuels a poor long-term fit for them.

    This has pushed nuclear energy back into the conversation. Nuclear energy is a good fit because it provides electricity around the clock, maximizing the use of expensive data centres. It’s also clean, allowing tech companies to meet their low CO2 commitments. Lastly, nuclear energy has very low fuel costs, which allows tech companies to plan their costs far into the future.

    However, nuclear energy has its own set of problems that have historically been hard to solve — problems that tech companies may now be uniquely positioned to overcome.

    Is nuclear energy making a comeback?

    Nuclear power has long been considered too costly and too slow to build. The estimated cost of a 1.1 gigawatt nuclear power facility is about US$7.77 billion, but can run higher. The recently completed Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in the state of Georgia, for example, cost US$36.8 billion combined.

    Historically, nuclear energy projects have been hard to justify because of their high upfront costs. Like solar and wind power, nuclear energy has relatively low operating costs once a plant is up and running. The key difference is scale: unlike solar panels, which can be installed on individual rooftops, the kind of nuclear reactors tech companies require can’t be built small.

    Yet this cost is now more palatable when compared to the expense of AI data centres, which are both more costly and entirely useless without electricity. The first phase of OpenAI and SoftBank’s Stargate AI project will cost US$100 billion and could be entirely powered by a single nuclear plant.

    Nuclear power plants also take a long time to build. A 1.1 gigawatt reactor takes, on average, 7.5 years in the U.S. and 6.3 years globally. Projects with such long timelines require confidence in long-term electricity demand, something traditional utilities struggle to predict.

    To solve the problem of long-range forecasting, tech companies are incentivizing power providers by guaranteeing they’ll purchase electricity far into the future.

    These companies are also literally and financially moving closer to nuclear power, either by acquiring nuclear energy companies or locating their data centres next to nuclear power plants.

    Destigmatizing nuclear energy

    One of the biggest challenges facing nuclear energy is the perception that it’s dangerous and dirty. Per gigawatt-hour of electricity, nuclear produces only six tonnes of CO2. In comparison, coal produces 970, natural gas 720 and hydropower 24. Nuclear even has lower emissions than wind and solar, which produce 11 and 53 tonnes of CO2, respectively.

    Nuclear energy is also among the safest energy sources. Per gigawatt-hour, it causes 820 times fewer deaths than coal, 43 times fewer than hydropower and roughly the same as wind and solar.

    Still, nuclear energy remains stigmatized, largely because of persistent misconceptions and outdated beliefs about nuclear waste and disasters. For instance, while many public concerns remain about nuclear waste, existing storage solutions have been used safely for decades and are supported by a strong track record and scientific consensus.

    Similarly, while the Fukushima disaster in Japan displaced thousands of people and was extremely costly (total costs of the disaster are expected at about US$188 billion), not a single person died of radiation exposure after the accident, a United Nations Scientific Committee of 80 international experts found.




    Read more:
    With nuclear power on the rise, reducing conspiracies and increasing public education is key


    For decades, there was little effort to correct public perceptions about nuclear fears because it wasn’t seen as necessary or profitable. Coal, gas and renewables were sufficient to meet the demand required of them. But that’s now changing.

    With AI’s energy needs soaring, Big Tech has classified nuclear energy as green and the World Bank has agreed to lift its longstanding ban on financing nuclear projects.

    Big Tech’s billion-dollar bet on nuclear

    The world has long lived with two nuclear dilemmas. The first is that, despite being one the safest and cleanest form of energy, nuclear was perceived as one the most dangerous and dirtiest.

    The second is that upgrading the power grid requires large-scale investments, yet money had been funnelled into small, distributed sources like solar and wind, or dirty ones like coal and natural gas.

    Now tech companies are making hundred-billion-dollar strategic bets that they can solve both nuclear dilemmas. They are betting that nuclear can offer the kind of steady, clean power their AI ambitions require.

    This could be an unexpected positive consequence of AI: the revitalization of one of the safest and cleanest energy sources available to humankind.

    Michael Tadrous, an undergraduate student and research assistant at the DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University, co-authored this article.

    Goran Calic does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. AI is consuming more power than the grid can handle — nuclear might be the answer – https://theconversation.com/ai-is-consuming-more-power-than-the-grid-can-handle-nuclear-might-be-the-answer-258677

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: How social media is changing the game for athletes

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Elyse Gorrell, PhD, CMPC, Brock University

    A landmark multibillion-dollar legal settlement is set to transform the landscape of college sports in the United States. A court recently approved the House v. NCAA settlement, requiring the NCAA (the National Collegiate Athletic Association) to pay nearly US$2.8 billion in damages over the next 10 years to athletes who competed from 2016 through to the present day.

    The settlement opens the door for college athletes to earn a share of revenue moving forward, marking a shift away from the traditional ideals of amateurism in sport.

    Amateurism was traditionally defined as the notion of athletes playing sport for the love of it rather than for financial reasons. Historically, it was created by upper-class elite groups as a way to exclude others. Today, its definition continues to be contested, especially since many athletes have been exploited by amateurism.

    The concept of NIL (name, image and likeness) has only exacerbated this by encouraging athletes to promote themselves on social media. Some sport organizations now even factor social media presence into recruitment decisions.

    These developments raise key questions: should we be treating athletes as brands? And what are the consequences of doing so, both on and off the field?

    Social media and the modern athlete

    Social media offers a way for athletes to build a community of followers, share and discuss their personal lives, and interact with fans.

    For many athletes, social media platforms have become tools for building a personal brand and differentiating themselves from other competitors and ultimately having more control over their public image. In turn, social media can allow them to seek out sponsorships and endorsement deals.

    However, research also shows there are negative side-effects of social media use. It also exposes athletes to public scrutiny and online abuse from fans, and can lead to effects similar to cyber-bullying.

    One study of NCAA Division I athletes found that maintaining a polished image on Twitter lead student-athletes to censor themselves to uphold a certain image, which stifled their self-expression. Athletes also reported that social media affected their concentration and raised performance anxiety due to pressure to perform well or face negative critiques.

    Other research has found that platforms like Facebook can distract athletes from optimal mental preparation. The pressure to manage and maintain a personal brand can result in some athletes prioritizing online presence over performance. Constant exposure to competitors’ content can also heighten stress and insecurity.

    My master’s thesis found that social media, and the way athletes use it, influences self-efficacy in combat sport athletes. I found that what athletes see online can disrupt their belief in their own abilities, sometimes more than their actual experience in sport.

    Impact on youth athletes

    My PhD research found that many athletes are unaware of how social media affects their mental game and performance. There’s even less information about how social media impacts youth athletes.

    Elite athletes already face a unique set of pressures: rigorous training schedules, limited leisure time, injury risks, competition pressure and the pursuit of scholarships or team placements. For young athletes, these challenges are layered on top of the developmental process of forming a sense of self. Social media now plays a central role in this development.

    For youth athletes, athletic identity becomes a major part of this process. It shapes how they think, feel, behave and relate to others through their connection to sport.

    But there is a complex relationship between social media and adolescent psychosocial development. Excessive or problematic social media use can negatively impact mental health and well-being, increasing risk of depression, low self-esteem, harassment and burnout.

    Despite these risks, there is limited social media training for athletes, and many are unaware of the effects social media use has on their performance.

    Coaches see the impact

    Since social media is now a constant part of athletes’ lives, understanding how coaches view it is essential. Research shows coaches are often more aware of how social media impacts their athletes’ performance and engagement. Many see it as a growing challenge.

    For my PhD thesis, which was later published as a peer-reviewed paper, I interviewed six high-performance coaches across a range of sports to understand their perspectives of athletes’ social media use.

    Many of the coaches I interviewed expressed concern that social media places too much emphasis on results and encourages constant comparison with others.

    They felt the instant feedback loop introduced too many voices that competed with their own, making it harder for athletes to focus on performance goals and training. Many of the coaches also believed athletes could become overly concerned with their public image and how they are perceived.

    What role should coaches play?

    Current recommendations for coaches recognize that an outright ban of social media and technology use for athletes is outdated and unrealistic. Athletes, especially younger ones, are digital natives.

    Instead, coaches are encouraged to adapt their methods to better align with the generation they are working with. But there aren’t many resources tailored for this purpose.

    What’s needed are tools to help coaches engage with their athletes and help them understand how social media influences their mental performance and well-being. Resources need to go beyond helping coaches use technology to providing them with information on how to communicate with their athletes safely or protect them from liability.

    In addition, trust between coaches and athletes has been strained in some cases by problematic social media-related incidents. For example, one study found that Snapchat has been used by coach perpetrators to sexually abuse their athletes by overcoming internal inhibitions, avoiding external barriers and breaking down victim resistance.

    Rather than focusing on controlling what athletes post on social media, organizations should educate athletes on the way social media might affect them while they are using it. This starts with awareness.

    Navigating the realities of social media

    The American Psychological Association offers general guidelines for recognizing problematic social media use in youth. While these recommendations provide a useful starting point, athletes face a unique set of challenges.

    Unlike their peers, many athletes are encouraged to use social media to brand themselves. Because of this, they need to understand how to balance healthy engagement and harmful overuse.

    At the same time, coaches also need better education. There must be a spectrum between coaches who don’t want anything to do with social media at all and coaches who are overly involved in their athlete’s social media.

    Coaching resources need to be created to address this. They should be accessible, and provide effective and appropriate assistance that aligns with, and supports, individual coaching methods. A one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to be effective.

    Social media is here to stay, and both athletes and coaches need the tools to help them navigate it well.

    Elyse Gorrell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. How social media is changing the game for athletes – https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-is-changing-the-game-for-athletes-258887

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Craig Mark, Adjunct Lecturer, Faculty of Economics, Hosei University

    Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has sent a clear signal to the Trump administration: the Japan–US relationship is in a dire state.

    After saying just days ago he would be attending this week’s NATO summit at The Hague, Ishiba abruptly pulled out at the last minute.

    He joins two other leaders from the Indo-Pacific region, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, in skipping the summit.

    The Japanese media reported Ishiba cancelled the trip because a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump was unlikely, as was a meeting of the Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) NATO partners (Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan).

    Japan will still be represented by Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya, showing its desire to strengthen its security relationship with NATO.

    However, Ishiba’s no-show reveals how Japan views its relationship with the Trump administration, following the severe tariffs Washington imposed on Japan and Trump’s mixed messages on the countries’ decades-long military alliance.

    Tariffs and diplomatic disagreements

    Trump’s tariff policy is at the core of the divide between the US and Japan.

    Ishiba attempted to get relations with the Trump administration off to a good start. He was the second world leader to visit Trump at the White House, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    However, Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed a punitive rate of 25% on Japanese cars and 24% on all other Japanese imports. They are already having an adverse impact on Japan’s economy: exports of automobiles to the US dropped in May by 25% compared to a year ago.

    Six rounds of negotiations have made little progress, as Ishiba’s government insists on full tariff exemptions.

    Japan has been under pressure from the Trump administration to increase its defence spending, as well. According to the Financial Times, Tokyo cancelled a summit between US and Japanese defence and foreign ministers over the demand. (A Japanese official denied the report.)

    Japan also did not offer its full support to the US bombings of Iran’s nuclear facilities earlier this week. The foreign minister instead said Japan “understands” the US’s determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Japan has traditionally had fairly good relations with Iran, often acting as an indirect bridge with the West. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe even made a visit there in 2019.

    Japan also remains heavily dependent on oil from the Middle East. It would have been adversely affected if the Strait of Hormuz had been blocked, as Iran was threatening to do.

    Unlike the response from the UK and Australia, which both supported the strikes, the Ishiba government prioritised its commitment to upholding international law and the rules-based global order. In doing so, Japan seeks to deny China, Russia and North Korea any leeway to similarly erode global norms on the use of force and territorial aggression.

    Strategic dilemma of the Japan–US military alliance

    In addition, Japan is facing the same dilemma as other American allies – how to manage relations with the “America first” Trump administration, which has made the US an unreliable ally.

    Earlier this year, Trump criticised the decades-old security alliance between the US and Japan, calling it “one-sided”.

    “If we’re ever attacked, they don’t have to do a thing to protect us,” he said of Japan.

    Lower-level security cooperation is ongoing between the two allies and their regional partners. The US, Japanese and Philippine Coast Guards conducted drills in Japanese waters this week. The US military may also assist with upgrading Japan’s counterstrike missile capabilities.

    But Japan is still likely to continue expanding its security ties with partners beyond the US, such as NATO, the European Union, India, the Philippines, Vietnam and other ASEAN members, while maintaining its fragile rapprochement with South Korea.

    Australia is now arguably Japan’s most reliable security partner. Canberra is considering buying Japan’s Mogami-class frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. And if the AUKUS agreement with the US and UK collapses, Japanese submarines could be a replacement.

    Ishiba under domestic political pressure

    There are also intensifying domestic political pressures on Ishiba to hold firm against Trump, who is deeply unpopular among the Japanese public.

    After replacing former prime minister Fumio Kishida as leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) last September, the party lost its majority in the lower house of parliament in snap elections. This made it dependent on minor parties for legislative support.

    Ishiba’s minority government has struggled ever since with poor opinion polling. There has been widespread discontent with inflation, the high cost of living and stagnant wages, the legacy of LDP political scandals, and ever-worsening geopolitical uncertainty.

    On Sunday, the party suffered its worst-ever result in elections for the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly, winning its lowest number of seats.

    The party could face a similar drubbing in the election for half of the upper house of the Diet (Japan’s parliament) on July 20. Ishiba has pledged to maintain the LDP’s majority in the house with its junior coalition partner Komeito. But if the government falls into minority status in both houses, Ishiba will face heavy pressure to step down.

    Craig Mark does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US – https://theconversation.com/japanese-prime-ministers-abrupt-no-show-at-nato-summit-reveals-a-strained-alliance-with-the-us-259694

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Economy – Depositor Compensation Scheme now in effect – Reserve Bank

    Source: Reserve Bank of New Zealand

    1 July 2025 – The Depositor Compensation Scheme (DCS) came into effect today, protecting depositors for up to $100,000 in the unlikely event that their bank or other licensed deposit taker fails.  

    Licensed deposit takers include banks, credit unions, building societies and finance companies who take retail deposits in New Zealand and are supervised by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.  

    The scheme covers money held in standard banking products, including transaction, savings, notice, and term deposit accounts. It protects individuals, businesses and trusts, and applies automatically from today.    

    The scheme is established under the Deposit Takers Act 2023, and the Reserve Bank will manage and administer the scheme. It is fully funded by levies on industry.

    Kerry Beaumont, Director of Enforcement and Resolution at the Reserve Bank says, “While deposit taker failures are rare, the DCS gives depositors extra peace of mind that their standard banking products are protected. This type of protection already exists in many other countries and contributes to the stability of New Zealand’s financial system.”  

    The scheme does not cover investments like KiwiSaver, bonds, shares, and similar products. It also does not protect against frauds or scams.  

    Banks, credit unions, building societies and finance companies who take retail deposits will list their DCS-protected products on their websites so depositors can check if their accounts are covered. Information about the scheme is also available on the Reserve Bank website.
     

    More information

    You can find a list of all deposit takers that offer DCS-covered deposits on the RBNZ’s website here: https://govt.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=bd316aa7ee4f5679c56377819&id=7fb4bc651b&e=f3c68946f8

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Schatz: Republicans Are Ripping People Off, Plunging Country Into Energy Crisis To Cut Taxes For Billionaires

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz

    WASHINGTON – During a debate on the Republican tax bill, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) condemned the bill’s provisions to gut clean energy which will raise people’s energy bills by more than a hundred dollars starting next year and make blackouts and power outages more common across the country.

    “This is the worst piece of legislation for the planet in the history of our country, and it’s not even close. Republicans are effectively codifying Big Oil’s wish list into law, without exception. They are killing clean energy. They are subsidizing coal. They are dramatically expanding oil and gas leasing. They’re purposely jacking up energy prices and creating shortages and creating shortages,” said Senator Schatz. “And for what? It’s to find enough savings to shovel tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars into the pockets of individual billionaires.”

    Senator Schatz continued, “This bill will kill 300,000 jobs in wind and solar per year. We’re going to lose out on $450 billion in capital as thousands of projects go under. And because of that, we’re going to generate about 500GW less energy in the next decade. We are going to have energy shortages as a result of this legislation.”

    A transcript of Senator Schatz’s remarks is below. Video is available here.

    There are a lot of people in this chamber and across the country who, on a non-ideological basis, want a consistent tax code so that businesses can invest with certainty and predictability. So let’s look at some of the numbers here in terms of the impact of this bill. This bill will kill 300,000 jobs in wind and solar per year. We’re going to lose out on $450 billion in capital as thousands of projects go under. And because of that, we’re going to generate about 500GW less energy in the next decade.

    Now, there was a time, and I lived through it as a politician, there was a time when people who wanted to take climate action had to argue for that climate action because it is a planetary emergency and there were tradeoffs. And people on the other side said, “look, as we try to take action to deal with this planetary crisis, we can’t create shortages, we can’t increase prices, we can’t impede economic progress.” All that has flipped.

    This bill will create shortages. This bill will impede economic progress. This bill will increase prices. The 500GW less energy in the next decade is pretty much exactly the amount of energy that we’re going to need to meet rising demand. We are going to have energy shortages as a result of this legislation.

    And you don’t have to love clean energy or be an environmentalist. And I love clean energy, and I’m an environmentalist. But you don’t have to care about the climate. I think you should. You don’t have to care about the climate to understand that this is a basic question of supply and demand. Energy demand is soaring for the first time in decades, largely not exclusively, but largely because of AI data centers. And our best chance of meeting it in the next few years is with wind and solar, not oil and gas, even nuclear and geothermal are going to take a while.

    That is not just a political talking point or a preference of mine. It’s just a fact that gas turbines are stuck in a years-long backlog. It’s also a fact that 80 percent of the new capacity on the grid last year came from solar and storage. It’s growing, it’s cheap, it works. And there are hundreds more projects that are in the pipeline waiting to be hooked up.

    So the idea that we’re going to kill the only energy that can be brought online in the short run, the very same week that half the country was meeting, melting in a record heat wave which left tens of thousands without power is beyond absurd.

    Let’s talk about how this bill does all of this damage. Specifically, it creates an impossible deadline for projects to be operational in order to claim the clean energy tax credits. Remember, these clean energy tax cuts are federal law. They’re on the books. So when you have a federal statute, it is not unreasonable as an investor to say, look, I got this tax credit. I’m going to get X number, X percent back for my initial investment. And you do the pro forma, you do the underwriting. And you figure out that the thing pencils out. And now what they’re saying is that you got to be operational in 60 days. If anyone has even built a deck in their front yard or tried to do an extension – nothing gets built in 60 days. Certainly not a clean energy project, and it has to be placed in service. What does placed in service mean? It means not only do you have to have the thing built, you have to have a power purchase agreement through your public service commission or public utilities commission. You have to have a deal in place in the next 60 days after enactment, or you get nothing.

    So imagine you’re a company investing in a solar battery storage project. You’ve already put money down, you’ve secured land and a power purchase agreement, and you’re working on permits. And when you started the project, the tax code said you could claim a credit to cover the upfront costs. Now, unless you are fully operational, you’re out of luck. On average, a project takes four years to go through the full process. So even if you’ve already started that progress, you now have very, very little time to get it done. We are going to strand hundreds of billions of dollars in capital. And so the impact on price is going to be crazy. The impact on jobs is going to be crazy. But the impact on America as an investable proposition is the most dangerous part of this. I don’t know that we’ve ever, through federal law, made a big subsidy, made a big bet on a certain industry. And then halfway through that process, said, never mind. We didn’t mean that. You’re stuck.

    According to the Edison Electric Institute. And by the way, I can guarantee you this is the first and maybe last time I will ever, ever quote the Edison Electric Institute. That’ll cost people, not companies, people, ratepayers $60 billion in this decade alone. Your electric bills are about to go up. A representative of a solar company in Hawaii put it this way. It is really unclear in the current version of the bill what the renewable energy industry even looks like, if it were passed today.

    An owner of a solar company in Montana, worried that the credits disappearing would force them to lay off half of his workers. He says, “Montana is deeply red, but it’s also a very practical place. And so green energy renewables became a taboo phrase somehow. The practical energy needs are undeniable, so we can get past our disagreements and about phraseology. We realize that electrons, watts, amps, it’s all cheaper.” A representative of a wind turbine company in Colorado said, “I don’t look at what we do as green or blue or red. An electron doesn’t have a color.” And that’s the point. Electrons don’t have color. Wanting cheap, abundant energy is not woke. Wanting a livable planet for today and for future generations is not radical and wanting reliable power and to avoid blackouts and brownouts is not a leftist project. But even if you set all of that aside for a minute, the states that have benefited the most from these investments are Republican states.

    According to estimates, nearly three quarters of clean energy manufacturing facilities are located in Republican states. It means that Republicans are going to pay more for energy. It means Republicans will lose jobs in clean energy because of a Republican bill. It means Republicans are going to have more blackouts in their homes and businesses. Gutting clean energy is not somehow owning the libs, and at least some Republicans in the Senate and House understand that even if their votes have not manifested to say otherwise.

    Here’s a letter from 21 House Republicans earlier this year, “As our conference has long believed, and all of the above energy approach combined with a robust, advanced manufacturing sector will help support the United States position as a global energy leader. Countless American companies are utilizing sector wide energy tax credits, many of which have enjoyed broad support in Congress to make major investments in domestic energy production and infrastructure for traditional and renewable sources alike.” And it goes on, “As energy demand continues to skyrocket. Any modifications that inhibit our ability to deploy new energy production risks sparking an energy crisis risks sparking an energy crisis.” 21 House Republicans are worried about an energy crisis imposed by the Republican Congress. It goes on. “This is especially true for energy credits with direct pass through benefit to ratepayers, where such repeals would increase utility bills the very next day – would increase utility bills the very next day.”

    This is not me, progressive Senator from the state of Hawai‘i, who has made a career out of fighting climate change. This is 21 House Republicans saying, like, “we’re going to create a crisis here. Maybe we shouldn’t pass this thing. A lot of this stuff benefits us. If we’re all out here talking about all of the above. Why are we cutting off our nose to spite our face?” Just because someone wants a talking point? People are literally going to lose their jobs immediately upon enactment. America is going to become a very challenging place to make major investments in, immediately upon enactment. The AI industry may move abroad immediately upon enactment, and prices will go up pretty much right away as well.

    A group of 175 mayors and local leaders wrote, “For the first time, state and local governments, as well as essential nonprofit community organizations such as houses of worship, hospitals and schools, can access the same clean energy tax credits as the private sector through elective pay. This has led to major projects in our communities, like solar installations for town halls, alternative fueling infrastructure, and charging stations for local government fleets. After one year of direct pay implementation, over 1200 organizations, including 500 state and local governments are already accessing these incentives. We are excited about these projects and the benefits that they will bring to our communities. However, as local leaders, we are concerned that repealing these tax credits would create economic uncertainty in our communities as it would prevent us from accessing those important benefits.”

    You know, I grew up to understand Republicans were for avoiding unintended consequences. Republicans were against radical change too quickly. Republicans wanted a solid business environment that people could rely upon. This is literally none of that. This is ideology manifesting itself as energy policy. And what’s going to happen is people are going to lose their jobs and pay tons more for electricity.

    The building trades unions called this bill “the biggest job killing bill in the history of this country.”  And they go on. “Simply put, it is the equivalent of terminating more than 1000 Keystone XL pipeline projects.” I’ve been here for a while. Keystone XL was a big deal to our friends in labor. I had some very tough conversations with my friends and labor about how important that project was to them, and how it was in tension with some of our climate goals.

    But listen to what they say. It is the equivalent of terminating 1,000 Keystone XL pipeline projects. These guys are not me or Jeff Merkley or Eddie Markey, or Sheldon Whitehouse, or Martin Heinrich, or Rep Ocasio-Cortez, or any climate advocate. This is the building trades, and they’re saying this is the biggest job killer, perhaps, perhaps in American history. We actually don’t have to do this.

    The impetus behind this bill was essentially border spending and preventing the Trump tax cuts from expiring. And then a bunch of stuff got added on because that’s what happens. And we were there for our own version of this, our own BBB, our own Build Back Better. And everybody in your party piles on with something new. And then the thing becomes a really challenging thing to pass, because everybody’s got their hobbyhorse and somebody’s hobbyhorse is not just to have an all of the above energy strategy, but to go out of your way to kill clean energy.  It doesn’t matter that it’s going to raise prices. It doesn’t matter that it’s going to kill jobs.

    People at all levels, in the public and private sectors across the political spectrum are all saying the same thing, which is this is a bad bill for regular people, for the economy and for the planet. One of the great things about our climate Bill was that it made what was good for the planet also good for the economy. Clean energy become became eminently profitable for businesses and widely accessible to consumers. And we made a choice there because some in our party didn’t like the basic premise. They were attached to the idea of personal political, economic sacrifice because the planet is in peril.

    And I understand that instinct. I understand that instinct. But we’ve paved a new path, and we decided, look, there’s enough technology out there. There are abundant energy sources out there that we can actually solve our planetary crisis and create jobs and lower prices, and we can do it in such a way that blue states and red states, urban rural, suburban all benefit. Republicans are on the verge of undoing all of that, even though it will hurt their constituents. And in doing so, we’re virtually guaranteeing China’s dominance in clean energy for decades to come. Because if you’re a China, you cannot believe your luck. Your biggest competitor is willingly forfeiting the fight over who controls the energy technologies of the future because Donald Trump is too busy trying to get us back to the pre-industrial age.

    This is the worst piece of legislation for the planet in the history of our country, and it’s not even close. Republicans are effectively codifying Big Oil’s wish list into law, without exception. They are killing clean energy. They are subsidizing coal. They are dramatically expanding oil and gas leasing. They’re purposely jacking up energy prices and creating shortages and creating shortages. And for what? Partially, it’s to find enough savings to shovel tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars into the pockets of individual billionaires. But even kicking more than 16 million people off of health care coverage, denying food to the poor, and adding almost $5 trillion to the national debt was not enough.

    People voted for Donald Trump for all sorts of reasons, but no one voted for higher energy bills. No one voted for more frequent blackouts and brownouts and dirtier air and water. No one, whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican or independent, wants that. I want to be clear this fight is far from over. This fight over this bill is far from over.

    But even if this bill passes, it will set us back. But the fight for the planet is bigger than any one bill or vote, and that includes the big climate bill that we passed in the previous administration. And as any movement that has successfully mobilized and made changes knows, progress is not linear. Progress always has setbacks and frustrations, and progress is not assured.

    States like Hawai‘i will continue to do everything that they can to protect our environment, and the rest of the world will move on without us, because doing nothing in the face of this worsening crisis is simply not an option. But make no mistake, what Congress is doing today will cost all of us in the years and decades to come.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Government confirms non-taxability of Canada Carbon Rebates for Small Businesses

    Source: Government of Canada News

    June 30, 2025 – Ottawa, Ontario – Department of Finance Canada

    Canada’s new government is bringing down costs and putting more money in Canadians’ pockets.

    Today, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, issued draft legislation to ensure that all Canada Carbon Rebates for Small Businesses are provided tax-free—securing small businesses the full financial benefit of the rebates. 

    Specifically, payments received by corporations in respect of the 2019-20 to 2023-24 fuel charge years would not be included in income for tax purposes, and the final payment to be made under the Canada Carbon Rebate for Small Businesses (i.e., in respect of the 2024-25 fuel charge year) will also be tax-free.

    The government will introduce legislation in Parliament to implement these changes in the fall.

    Once the legislation receives Royal Assent, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) will have the authority to process amended T2 corporation income tax returns for those who have already included the rebate in their taxable income, ensuring the rebate is processed as tax-free (i.e., not included in the taxable income reported in the T2). Further guidance will be provided by the CRA at that time.

    The Government also confirms that eligible businesses that filed their 2023 tax return after July 15, 2024, and on or before December 31, 2024, will also be eligible to receive tax-free payments in respect of the 2019-20 to 2023-24 fuel charge years, once the legislation receives Royal Assent. Eligible businesses that file their 2024 income tax return by July 15, 2025, will be eligible to receive a tax-free payment in respect of the 2024-25 fuel charge year.

    Finally, with the removal of the fuel charge from law and the winding down of proceeds return mechanisms, the government will no longer proceed with proposed changes announced in the 2024 Fall Economic Statement which would have expanded eligibility for the Canada Carbon Rebate for Small Businesses to cooperative corporations and credit unions, added a minimum payment for smaller businesses, and introduced a phaseout for larger businesses.

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Residential fees for a foreign person

    Source: New places to play in Gungahlin

    When to pay a fee

    If you are a foreign person investing in residential property in Australia, you must pay a fee when:

    There are very limited circumstances where we grant a fee waiver or remission.

    How much is the fee

    Your application fee is generally based on the value of the property you intend to buy.

    Fees for property developers applying for a New or near-new dwelling exemption certificate are different to residential property application fees.

    Types of residential fees

    Application fees

    Table 1: Application fees for acquisitions of new or near new residential dwellings or vacant residential land from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026

    Amount

    Fee per action

    Less than $75,000

    $4,500

    $1 million or less

    $15,100

    $2 million or less

    $30,300

    $3 million or less

    $60,600

    $4 million or less

    $90,900

    $5 million or less

    $121,200

    $6 million or less

    $151,500

    $7 million or less

    $181,800

    $8 million or less

    $212,100

    $9 million or less

    $242,400

    $10 million or less

    $272,700

    $11 million or less

    $303,000

    $12 million or less

    $333,300

    $13 million or less

    $363,600

    $14 million or less

    $393,900

    $15 million or less

    $424,200

    $16 million or less

    $454,500

    $17 million or less

    $484,800

    $18 million or less

    $515,100

    $19 million or less

    $545,400

    $20 million or less

    $575,700

    $21 million or less

    $606,000

    $22 million or less

    $636,300

    $23 million or less

    $666,600

    $24 million or less

    $696,900

    $25 million or less

    $727,200

    $26 million or less

    $757,500

    $27 million or less

    $787,800

    $28 million or less

    $818,100

    $29 million or less

    $848,400

    $30 million or less

    $878,700

    $31 million or less

    $909,000

    $32 million or less

    $939,300

    $33 million or less

    $969,600

    $34 million or less

    $999,900

    $35 million or less

    $1,030,200

    $36 million or less

    $1,060,500

    $37 million or less

    $1,090,800

    $38 million or less

    $1,121,100

    $39 million or less

    $1,151,400

    $40 million or less

    $1,181,700

    More than $40 million

    $1,205,200

    From 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2027, foreign persons are banned from purchasing established dwellings in Australia unless a limited exception applies. For more information, see Types of property a foreign person can buy.

    Table 2: Application fees for acquisitions of established dwellings from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026

    Amount

    Fee per action

    Less than $75,000

    $13,500

    $1 million or less

    $45,300

    $2 million or less

    $90,900

    $3 million or less

    $181,800

    $4 million or less

    $272,700

    $5 million or less

    $363,600

    $6 million or less

    $454,500

    $7 million or less

    $545,400

    $8 million or less

    $636,300

    $9 million or less

    $727,200

    $10 million or less

    $818,100

    $11 million or less

    $909,000

    $12 million or less

    $999,900

    $13 million or less

    $1,090,800

    $14 million or less

    $1,181,700

    $15 million or less

    $1,272,600

    $16 million or less

    $1,363,500

    $17 million or less

    $1,454,400

    $18 million or less

    $1,545,300

    $19 million or less

    $1,636,200

    $20 million or less

    $1,727,100

    $21 million or less

    $1,818,000

    $22 million or less

    $1,908,900

    $23 million or less

    $1,999,800

    $24 million or less

    $2,090,700

    $25 million or less

    $2,181,600

    $26 million or less

    $2,272,500

    $27 million or less

    $2,363,400

    $28 million or less

    $2,454,300

    $29 million or less

    $2,545,200

    $30 million or less

    $2,636,100

    $31 million or less

    $2,727,000

    $32 million or less

    $2,817,900

    $33 million or less

    $2,908,800

    $34 million or less

    $2,999,700

    $35 million or less

    $3,090,600

    $36 million or less

    $3,181,500

    $37 million or less

    $3,272,400

    $38 million or less

    $3,363,300

    $39 million or less

    $3,454,200

    $40 million or less

    $3,545,100

    More than $40 million

    $3,615,600

    Variation application fees

    You must pay a fee to apply to vary an existing foreign investment approval.

    For 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026, the fee is:

    • $4,500 for a simple variation (considered immaterial or minor)
    • $30,300 for a complex variation (not of an immaterial or minor nature).

    We will cap your fee where you are seeking to vary an application notice and you originally paid a lower fee. For example, if you requested a complex variation in May 2023 for an approval where you originally paid a $13,200 fee, the variation fee is capped at $13,200.

    Tenants in common share of fees

    If you are purchasing the property as tenants in common, the fee payable for the interest is equal to your percentage of ownership in the property.

    Example: tenants in common

    Sara is a foreign person, and she is purchasing an Australian property with another investor as tenants in common.

    On 1 May 2023, she applies for residential approval to purchase 25% of a $1.5 million property with the other investor.

    The application fee for a $1.5 million property is $26,400. When Sara submits her application, she needs to pay $6,600 which is 25% of the total fee for the property.

    End of example

    Annual vacancy fee

    You pay a vacancy fee if:

    • your property is vacant for 183 days (6 months) or more in a vacancy year
    • you fail to lodge your annual vacancy fee return on time.

    For vacancy years starting 9 April 2024 the fee will be double your foreign investment application fee.

    Fees are calculated when you lodge your vacancy fee return.

    Example: working out your vacancy fee

    Rishi is a foreign person looking to buy a newly developed apartment in the Sydney area for under $2 million. He applies for approval for a residential property exemption certificate for a new property in April 2024 and pays the $28,200 application fee.

    Rishi’s application is approved, and he has 12 months to purchase a newly developed apartment. On 2 November 2024 he completes settlement on a newly developed apartment and makes it available for rent.

    Rishi’s vacancy year will end on 1 November each year. He will need to lodge a vacancy fee return by 1 December 2025. If the apartment was unoccupied and not available to rent for more than 183 days (6 months), he will pay a vacancy fee of $56,400. This is twice the fee he paid for the exemption certificate application.

    End of example

    Application fee for property developers

    Property developers applying for a New or near-new dwelling exemption certificate must pay an initial application fee of $65,200 for 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026.

    As a developer you are then required to report the sales of new or near-new dwellings every 6 months. A separate fee per sale will be payable for each dwelling sold to a foreign person under the certificate.

    Fees are updated once a year

    Fees for foreign investment applications are indexed each financial year on 1 July. The information on this page is correct at the time of publishing.

    For more information, see The Treasury’s Guidance Note 10: FeesExternal Link.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Administrator Loeffler Pens Op-Ed in Support of One Big Beautiful Bill

    Source: United States Small Business Administration

    WASHINGTON – In case you missed it, Kelly Loeffler, Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), published an op-ed in Fox News – highlighting how President Donald J. Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill will benefit America’s 34 million small businesses. Her piece underscores specific provisions of the legislation that will drive Main Street job creation, growth, and prosperity – including making the 199A Pass-Through Deduction permanent, eliminating tax on tips and overtime, incentivizing the return of Made in America, bringing more able-bodied Americans back into the workforce, and cutting red tape.

    This month, Administrator Loeffler has traveled to Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, and North Carolina to meet with small business owners and highlight the urgent need to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill – to protect working- and middle-class job creators from the largest tax hike in American history.

    Read the op-ed or view excerpts below:

    “Since February, I’ve traveled across the country meeting with small business owners in nearly every sector – from family farms and factory floors to the Main Street cornerstones of restaurants and retailers. Their message is clear: they don’t want bailouts, bigger tax bills or bureaucracy. They want a tax code that enables them to plan for the long term, puts more money in their pockets, and rewards – not punishes – work, entrepreneurship and growth. This bill delivers on all three.”

    “The “One Big, Beautiful Bill” prevents the largest tax hike in history. It makes the 2017 tax cuts permanent, including the Section 199A deduction – leaving more capital in the hands of America’s 34 million small business owners to hire, expand and reinvest in their operations. This provision alone is projected to create 1 million new jobs on Main Street and generate $750 billion in economic activity over the next decade.”

    “Unlike his predecessor, Trump has never lost sight of those who drive the American economy. The “One Big Beautiful Bill” is a reflection of his commitment to working families and small businesses. It delivers real tax relief, trims Washington overreach, rewards work and puts small businesses back where they belong – at the center of America’s success story.  Congress should act without delay. Small businesses are ready to keep building, hiring and innovating – this time with most in Washington finally behind them.”

    # # #

    About the U.S. Small Business Administration
    The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of entrepreneurship. As the leading voice for small businesses within the federal government, the SBA empowers job creators with the resources and support they need to start, grow, and 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 United Nations: Security Council Renews Democratic Republic of Congo Sanctions Regime, Unanimously Adopting Resolution 2783 (2025)

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    The Security Council today renewed the sanctions regime concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo until 1 July 2026 and extended the mandate of the corresponding Group of Experts until 1 August 2026.

    Unanimously adopting resolution 2783 (2025) (to be issued as document S/RES/2783(2025)) under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, the Council decided to renew measures relating to arms, finances and travel relating to the Democratic Republic of the Congo until 1 July 2026.

    The representative of France, whose delegation submitted the text, thanked all Council members for their engagement and said the sanctions regime and Group of Experts are central tools in combating violence and destabilization in the eastern part of the country.  He noted the 27 June Council meeting, during which Council members marked the signing of a draft peace agreement by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, under the auspice of the United States Government.  “What we are doing shows that improvement in the Great Lakes region can occur,” he said.  “We must do all that we can to support peace and security in the region.”

    The resolution reiterated that the armed and security forces of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are exempt from the embargo on the supply of military equipment and assistance, as agreed on 2 May 2024, and from any notification procedure, as set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the resolution.

    By other terms of the text, the Council decided to extend until 1 August 2026 the mandate of the Group of Experts, as set forth in paragraph 6 of resolution 2360 (2017), and expressed its intention to review the mandate and take appropriate action regarding further extension no later than 1 July 2026.  It also requests the Group of Experts to provide the Council, after discussion with the Committee, a mid-term report no later than 30 December 2025 and a final report not later than 15 June 2026, as well as monthly updates.

    The resolution also recalled the Secretary-General’s commitment that the United Nations will do everything possible to ensure that the perpetrators of the killing of the two members of the Group of Experts and the four Congolese nationals accompanying them are brought to justice and stressed the importance of a follow-up in assisting the Democratic Republic of the Congo with the national investigation, within existing resources.

    The representative of Guyana, President of the Council for June, speaking in her national capacity, noted her delegation’s appreciation to all Council members and the Secretariat staff for their support, which let the Council rally to consensus on several important issues.  She extended her best wishes to the incoming Council President from Pakistan.

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: ‘New Dawn’ Rises for Financing Development Progress, Secretary-General Tells Business Forum at International Conference

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    Following are UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ remarks at the opening of the International Business Forum at the Conference on Financial Development, in Sevilla, Spain, today:

    This Forum reflects a fundamental fact.  Development is everyone’s business.  And the private sector is an essential partner in helping countries climb the development ladder and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

    Businesses are not just engines of jobs and economic growth. They help propel the innovation, technology and investment that development demands.

    We are here to boost support for initiatives that benefit people and planet.  We meet against the backdrop of an incredibly challenging global environment.  As we gather in Sevilla, trade barriers and macroeconomic risks are rising.  Major aid cuts are making a bad situation even worse.

    Mistrust and geopolitical divisions are blocking effective global solutions.  And the financing gap for the Sustainable Development Goals has ballooned to $4 trillion.

    When the world came together for this conference 10 years ago in Addis Ababa, countries recognized that achieving the Goals was impossible without mobilizing private capital at scale.

    One decade later, we continue to fall short.  Last year, investment in infrastructure in developing countries dropped by 35 per cent — including in key sectors like renewable energy, water and sanitation.

    And foreign direct investment has declined two years in a row, with investment flows largely bypassing Least Developed Countries altogether. We need to create the conditions to change course.  And that begins here in Spain.

    The Sevilla Commitment document includes important steps to get the engine of development revving again:  Through new domestic and global commitments that can channel public and private finance to the areas of greatest need […] By overhauling the world’s approach to debt to make borrowing work in service of sustainable development […] And by reforming the global financial architecture to reflect today’s realities and the urgent needs of developing countries.

    The Sevilla Commitment also puts forward a number of specific actions to unlock private sector investment in sustainable development. This includes steps to strengthen the way we blend public and private capital together to maximize the use of public money in crowding-in private funds.  It includes new approaches to manage currency risk that prevent otherwise promising investment opportunities from securing the capital required.

    And it includes a call to review financial regulations to ensure that risk weightings are well-designed, and help — not hinder — institutional investors from embracing projects in frontier markets.

    These are significant steps, informed by lessons learned over the past 10 years.  When one looks at today’s world, the crises in the official development assistance (ODA), the crises in the global funds available, it is absolutely evident that we need to be able to multiply the resources available for investments.

    And the main obligation, in my opinion, of public development banks, most national and international, should be today concentrated, not essentially, in their operations, and I understand the pressure of any bureaucracy to do their own things, but those public funds available in developing banks, should be more and more put to work to multiply resources through de-risking private finances and private investments.

    Giving guaranties, stablishing coalitions in which they are the first risk takers and creating the conditions to massively increase the massive private finance and private investment in countries in which, without the necessary de-risking, it is practically impossible to see enough development.

    This is a new mentality that we need to guaranty in the investment banks, the public investment banks, both national and international.

    Throughout, we are counting on the leadership and vision of all of you to carry forward the spirit of collaboration and bold solutions.  By uniting public and private sector leaders, regulators and development banks, we can ensure that this conference is not an end, but rather a beginning.

    The beginning of a new era of action and collaboration on some of the most urgent issues facing our world today.  And a new dawn for how we finance development progress around the world.

    Thank you all for being part of this important effort. I hope that the joint participation of the public and private sectors can multiply the resources we have.

    Knowing that much more investment is needed in today’s world, but that there are mechanisms that allow available public funds to mobilize much more private financing and investment than today.

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: ‘Don’t Agonize — Organize, Help Realize Change Our World Urgently Needs’, Deputy Secretary-General Tells Sciences Po Graduating Class

    Source: United Nations 4

    Following are UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed’s remarks at the graduation ceremony for the Paris School of International Affairs, Sciences Po, in Paris today:

    Let me begin with the most important word of all:  congratulations.

    You now join a long line of Sciences Po alumni who have shaped our world — including some of whom are doing it every day at the United Nations as they work in my office supporting the Secretary-General.

    Let’s also take a moment to recognize your families, friends and loved ones — who have been with you every step of the way.  They deserve a round of applause.

    Students representing more than 120 nationalities come here to learn how the world works, and how it can work better.  That spirit of global curiosity and purpose has also carried me through every chapter of my own journey:  designing schools and hospitals in my home country of Nigeria; advising four Presidents on poverty reduction, development policy planning and public sector reform; supporting Member States to lead the process that transformed global aspirations into the Sustainable Development Goals; and now as the longest-serving Deputy Secretary-General in United Nations history, supporting the Secretary-General on some of the most complex situations in our history, from COVID to Ukraine to Sudan and Gaza and today’s continuing crisis in the Middle East.

    Today, I want to reflect on the lessons I have learned along the way.

    First, don’t agonize, organize.  We live in a world of hurt.  A world that is messy, complicated and often overwhelming.  And I know it might be easy to feel paralysed by the scale and hopelessness of today’s challenges.  Don’t. Because more than ever, those challenges are connected — and we solve them by seeing those connections and coming together.

    When I served as Nigeria’s Minister for Environment, my job was never just about the environment.  When Lake Chad was drying up, it wasn’t just an ecological crisis — it was a security crisis.  Boko Haram was born and abducted 200 schoolgirls.  When we faced population and urban sprawl and tensions rose between farmers and herders, it wasn’t just about water access — it was about food systems and growing cities. When I met girls walking hours to fetch water, missing school every day — it wasn’t just about resources — it was about gender equality.

    We didn’t work in siloes.  We built coalitions across sectors — civil society, young people, traditional leaders, the private sector — to find real solutions.  We didn’t agonize, we organized.  And, yes, there’s plenty to agonize about today — especially when multilateralism is under attack and international cooperation is on the back foot. But I have seen what’s possible when we find common ground and forge ahead.

    Just look at the last two months at the UN.:  a landmark Pandemic Treaty approved at the World Health Organization; major new protections for our oceans at the World Ocean Conference in Nice; and from Paris, I head to Sevilla — where the world is coming together to commit to better finance sustainable development.

    So, when the problems seem larger than life, too tangled, too tough — don’t agonize.  Organize.  Mobilize.   And help realize the change our world so urgently needs. Remember you did not fail for want of trying.

    The second lesson — keep learning and delivering.

    Graduation isn’t the end of learning.  In many ways, it’s just the start of your lifelong journey.

    When I joined the UN, I was not steeped in the intricacies of international diplomacy.  Throughout my career, I have had to learn fast — and deliver even faster.  So will you.

    Even now, I am learning every day — about artificial intelligence (AI), about geothermal energy, space debris, biotechnology, cybersecurity.  You will face even more change, even faster, especially in the new era of super technologies.  Regardless of the task that is put in front of you, get ahead of it. Learn more.  Do more.  Show your stuff and deliver.  Performance opens doors.  Yes, some of life is luck and privilege.  But I guarantee:  the harder you work, the luckier you will get.

    Third, make hope your most powerful asset.  The world is a cynical place.  And international affairs is not for the faint of heart.  There will be setbacks and critics.  There will be many days when the problems seem too big, and the politics too small.  When anxieties grip you like a fever.  Just look around:  war in Ukraine, atrocities in Sudan, catastrophe in Gaza, climate chaos everywhere.

    But never forget, hope is not a four-letter word.  Hope is the courage to build when others are tearing down.  Hope is the decision to get up one more time, to negotiate one more deal, even when the odds are against you.

    I have sat with young girls who survived the worst horrors of war and sexual violence.  And in their eyes, I saw not just pain — but power.  The power to heal, to lead, to hope, to survive and thrive.

    Hope is not the absence of fear.  It is the refusal to be defined by it.  So, carry it with you.  Guard it fiercely.  Because hope is not just a feeling.  It’s a force.

    Fourth, hold onto your moral compass.

    Your degree will open doors.  But your integrity will tell you which ones are worth walking through.  And in today’s world — where the global moral compass is spinning — that clarity matters more than ever.

    We live in a world where military spending is soaring, while development budgets shrink.  Where fossil fuel subsidies dwarf investments in climate action.  Where conflict and hardship has forced more people from their homes than at any time since the Second World War.

    In this world, your role as changemakers is not just to make the right deals.  It is to draw the right lines.  There will be pressure to stay silent.  There will be moments when abandoning principles may seem an easier choice.  But integrity matters most.

    As Deputy Secretary-General, I have had to tell hard truths to powerful people. To remind leaders of the many promises they made — and the people they made them to.  It is never easy to challenge power.  But we don’t serve power.  We serve people.  And if we truly serve people, we must use our superpower and stand for justice, dignity and solidarity.

    As we mark Beijing+30, we cannot talk about a future and leave women and girls behind.  Gender equality is not charity.  It powers our agency.  And human rights.  And everyone wins when we leave no one behind.  But let’s be honest, we are not there yet.  So, to the men here today, I say:  don’t stand in the way.  Don’t walk ahead.  Walk with.  Stand with. And speak up.  For the other half of your society, women.

    The final lesson is this:  invest time in what truly sustains you.

    Your career will have highs and lows.  Plans change.  Titles come and go.  But what will carry you through are the people who know you beyond your résumé.  Friends, families, mentors, partners.  Protect those bonds.  Nurture them.  Because in the toughest moments, those relationships will remind you of who you are, why you started and why you must keep going.  So, no matter how far you go, or how fast — never lose sight of what, and who, matters most.

    Today, you are not just stepping into the world.  You are inheriting its unfinished business, and its boundless possibilities.  As I look out, I see the next generation of climate champions, human rights defenders and world class diplomats.  And I am filled with hope.  Whatever path you choose, walk it with courage and conviction.

    Congratulations, Class of 2025.  The world is waiting.  And I, for one, can’t wait to see what you will do.

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Fact Sheet: President Trump Is Delivering Historic Permitting Wins Across the Federal Government

    Source: US Whitehouse

    ACCOMPLISHING PERMITTING REFORM IN RECORD TIME:  Today, President Donald J. Trump delivered on his promise to fix a broken permitting system, ensuring that burdensome Federal environmental reviews cannot be weaponized to stall the growth of the American economy or halt energy infrastructure construction.

    • The White House, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), coordinated a historic effort to dramatically reduce the burdens of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance across the Federal government so that America can get back to building again.
    • In consultation with CEQ, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce (including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers updated their respective NEPA implementing procedures to  simplify this overly burdensome process and ensure efficient and timely environmental reviews.
    • These historic reforms:
      • Implement deadlines and page limits on environmental reviews required under recent amendments to NEPA, in order to expedite infrastructure development and reduce costs.
      • Provide clarification that NEPA does not apply to every action that a Federal agency takes, but only to Federal actions where the agency has sufficient control and discretion to take environmental effects into account.
      • Ensure simple and expeditious processes to create categorical exclusions (CEs), adopt other agencies’ CEs to minimize repetitive NEPA analyses, and focus their attention on actions with truly significant environmental effects.

    CUTTING UNNECESSARY RED TAPE: All three branches of the Federal government have recently directed reforms to the NEPA process: President Trump, in his Unleashing American Energy Executive Order; the United States Congress, in its BUILDER Act amendments as part of the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act; and the United States Supreme Court in its recent landmark decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County.

    • NEPA directs all agencies to maintain their own, agency-level NEPA implementing procedures.
    • Most of those procedures had not been modernized to reflect any of the recent reforms. Some agencies were still using outdated NEPA regulations from the 1980s.
    • Under President Trump’s leadership, the endless cycle of regulatory back-and-forth and excessive environmental reviews that produced little benefit for the American people has come to a halt.
    • Federal agencies are cutting unnecessary layers of bureaucracy in record time by implementing the unmistakable direction from all three branches of the Federal government. 

    BUILDING ON PAST SUCCESS: The Trump Administration has taken decisive action to reform, modernize, and expedite the Federal environmental review, eliminating unnecessary delays that are holding back the growth of secure and reliable infrastructure projects across the Nation.

    • On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed the Executive Order, Unleashing American Energy, which called for unleashing American energy dominance through efficient permitting.
      • The E.O. directed CEQ to provide guidance on implementing NEPA to expedite and simplify the permitting process – and propose rescinding CEQ’s regulations.
      • CEQ responded to President Trump’s direction by rescinding its NEPA regulations, creating a clear path for agencies to expeditiously reform their own NEPA procedures and allow America to build again.
      • President Trump’s action to restore CEQ to its core statutory mission of coordinating and consulting, providing guidance to Federal agencies as they revise their NEPA procedures, will ensure timely reviews and consistency across agencies and enable CEQ to coordinate this monumental deregulatory effort.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Have your say on B.C.’s climate plan

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    People in British Columbia are invited to provide feedback about CleanBC, the Province’s plan to improve energy efficiency, reduce emissions and increase the use of clean energy.

    An independent review of CleanBC’s programs and policies is underway and public input will help inform its findings.

    The review is assessing how well CleanBC is working, where improvements could be made and how its programs affect people, communities and the economy.

    Feedback can be submitted through a short survey until Aug. 1, 2025.

    CleanBC includes supports for cleaner transportation, home and building upgrades, and reducing emissions from industry. It aims to help British Columbia transition to a low-carbon economy, while keeping energy affordable and reliable.

    The review is being led by independent climate-policy experts Merran Smith and Dan Woynillowicz. The panel will engage with Indigenous people, local governments, environmental non-government organizations, industry, climate experts, the Climate Solutions Council and other interest holders.

    In addition to public feedback, interested parties, including affected industry professionals, labour representatives, environmental NGOs and climate experts, are invited to make written submissions to CleanBCReview@gov.bc.ca until 4 p.m. on July 18, 2025.

    First Nations rights and title holders, Indigenous organizations and local governments are invited to make written submissions to CleanBCReview@gov.bc.ca until 4 p.m. on Aug. 1, 2025.

    Submission should be a maximum of 2,500 words. All submissions will be read and considered as part of the CleanBC review.

    Key dates for the review:

    • Sept. 1, 2025 – Draft recommendations submitted to government
    • Oct. 15, 2025 – Final recommendations submitted
    • Late fall 2025 – Final report released publicly

    Learn More:

    To take the feedback survey, visit: https://engage.gov.bc.ca/govtogetherbc/engagement/cleanbcreview/#feedback

    To read the terms of reference for the review, visit: https://news.gov.bc.ca/files/CleanBCTermsofReference.pdf

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Making New York Safer During Gun Violence Awareness Month

    Source: US State of New York

    [embedded content]

    [embedded content]

    New York State Office of Victim Services Director Bea Hanson said, “Communities across New York State are experiencing record-low incidents of gun violence, but some communities still experience more gun violence than others. And we know that even one victim is one too many. All survivors, their families and communities need continued support, increased access to services, and expanded programs that focus on both prevention and intervention. OVS is proud to support the work of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention and remains committed to ensuring that all survivors have the resources they need to recover and thrive. We thank Governor Hochul for prioritizing public safety and for her unwavering support to continue reducing gun violence in all our communities.”

    State Senator Zellnor Myrie said, “At a time when the Trump Administration is rolling back efforts to stop gun violence nationwide, New York continues to lead the way. The Office of Gun Violence Prevention will coordinate efforts among localities and community groups, collect and share data on best practices, and help organizations on the front lines of this fight weather the storms coming from Washington. Our community deserves a whole-of-government approach to ending gun violence, and I am proud to have led the effort to establish OGVP alongside Assemblymember Monique Chandler-Waterman and advocates who are fighting for public safety.”

    State Senator Nathalia Fernandez said, “Gun violence has cut too many lives short — and the current administration has turned their backs on us by closing the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. By codifying the Office of Gun Violence Prevention in New York, we’re saying that our right to safety, community, and to life itself is worth defending. I thank Governor Hochul for not only responding to gun violence, but also investing in the infrastructure to prevent it.”

    Assemblymember Monique Chandler-Waterman said, “We are at a pivotal moment in time with these vital investments of securing in state stature the NYS Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This office will be rooted in data collection, public education, wrap-around services, community collaboration, providing funding to local anti-violence groups and effective coordination between agencies and stakeholders. We are taking a bold step toward ending gun violence and addressing the trauma that continues to devastate our communities. While also codifying a new term called mass gun violence that will activate this office to coordinate resources to impacted communities. Thank you to the Governor for prioritizing our survivors, community members and anti-violence community based organizations on the ground doing this important work. As the co-chair of the NYS Anti-Gun Violence Subcommittee of the NYS Black Puerto Rican Hispanic and Asian Legislative Caucus I am proud of the movement we’ve made here in New York that will serve as a model for states across the country—especially at a time when federal funding for comprehensive, preventative approaches to gun violence is being slashed. Deepened financial investments will ensure long-term support to address this public health crisis in a real and lasting way. This is a step in the right direction and I will continue to advocate for more investments until the day we can say not another loved one was murdered due to gun violence.”

    State Senator Jamaal T. Bailey said, “Codifying the State Office of Gun Violence Prevention is about building a lasting commitment to saving lives. As we see a decline in shootings, we cannot grow complacent. Now is the time to double down, to institutionalize the progress we’ve made and ensure our strategies are permanent, proactive, and rooted in community. This Office will serve as a centralized hub for prevention, coordination, and innovation to keep the voices of those most impacted at the center of the conversation. Thank you to Senator Zellnor Myrie and Assembly Member Monique Chandler-Waterman for sponsoring the bill. I thank Governor Kathy Hochul, Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, and Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie for their continued leadership and their partnership in making public safety a priority for every neighborhood across the State of New York.”

    State Senator Kristen Gonzalez said, “As the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans cut funding for violence prevention and dismantle offices to address this crisis our state is showing leadership. Every New Yorker including my constituents deserves to be safe. The codification of a state Office of Gun Violence Prevention will ensure this important initiative can carry on in future administrations and that we can more intentionally track and address this public health emergency. I’m grateful to my colleagues who worked on this legislation and the issue and the Governor for including it in our state budget.”

    State Senator Leroy Comrie said, “Gun violence is a public health crisis that demands a united, data-driven response. I commend Governor Hochul for codifying the Office of Gun Violence Prevention into law and look forward to increased investment in the Crisis Management Services providers who do this work everyday, from Southeast Queens to East Buffalo. With CMS organizations involved at every level, this office will help ensure we’re not only addressing violence when it happens, but working to prevent it in the first place.”

    Assemblymember Michaelle Solages said, “While Washington turns its back, New York is stepping up. Governor Hochul, our State Legislature, and local advocates are proving what real action looks like. By making the Office of Gun Violence Prevention permanent, we are saving lives and supporting communities that have been marginalized for too long. The drop in shootings shows this approach works and we will keep going until every New Yorker feels safe.”

    Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz said, “Following alarming spikes of gun violence during the COVID-19 pandemic, New York State has seen a steady decrease in gun violence during the last few years. Many of the investments we’re making, including providing funding for the establishment of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention and expanding the duties of the Division of Criminal Justice Services to include gun violence intervention and prevention strategies, will contribute towards our continued success in addressing gun violence. Legislation has also been a key factor contributing to the decline of gun violence, including my law requiring a person who seeks to obtain a gun license or purchase a firearm to be made aware of the dangers of ownership, including the increased risk of suicide, death during domestic disputes, and unintentional deaths of others while and making them aware of the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. I look forward to continuing to work with my partners in government in reaching our ultimate goal of eradicating the scourge of gun violence in our state.”

    Assemblymember Yudelka Tapia said, “Gun violence has devastated too many families in the Bronx and across New York State. By making the Office of Gun Violence Prevention permanent, our state is making it clear that we will not turn our backs on the communities most impacted by this crisis. This office will strengthen violence interruption efforts, increase access to youth programs, and provide long-term support to grassroots organizations working on the frontlines.”

    “By codifying the State’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention, we’re increasing the impact of our efforts to mitigate gun crimes in New York and working directly with the communities most affected by gun violence to fundamentally change the way we address and combat this public health crisis across our state.”

    Governor Kathy Hochul

    Assemblymember Nikki Lucas said, “I am in support of the establishment of an Office of Gun Violence. Members of my district like New Yorkers across our state, hold accountable government to provide Public Safety services for all. The Office of Gun Violence is another crucial step that protects all New Yorkers including families, domestic violence survivors, police officers, incarcerated individuals along with providing critical psychological testing for candidates in need. I am happy to stand with Governor Hochul along with my colleagues in government who have worked to make this a reality.”

    Assemblymember Brian Cunningham said, “We’ve seen gun violence go down in my district because prevention works. The Office of Gun Violence Prevention, now formally established in the state budget, will expand that impact by coordinating funding, supporting local groups, and improving accountability. Communities most affected by gun violence deserve strategic, evidence-based solutions, and the Governor’s work here positions New York to deliver them.”

    Assemblymember Landon Dais said, “Here in the Bronx, we have unfortunately seen Gun violence devastate too many families for far too long. The formal establishment of New York’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention is a critical step in making sure our communities get the resources, coordination, and support they deserve. As a father of two young boys growing up in the Bronx, I recognized the need for a holistic approach to ending gun violence. One that does not only criminalize but finds our youth something to do and prevents them from picking up guns in the first place. I commend Governor Hochul for her commitment to real, lasting solutions because every New Yorker, from the South Bronx to upstate, deserves to feel safe where they live, work, and raise their families.”

    Assemblymember George Alvarez said, “I applaud Governor Hochul on her successful efforts to significantly reduce gun violence over the past year. It’s been my honor to work alongside the Governor and my colleagues in the State legislature to make our communities safer. In the face of declining support for gun safety at the Federal level, I congratulate the Governor on making permanent the Office of Gun Violence Prevention (OGVP). The time is now for New York to take such measures to protect our residents against the ravages of guns on our streets.”

    Assemblymember John Zaccaro, Jr. said, “I was proud to support legislation in this year’s budget that would codify the Office of Gun Violence Prevention and applaud the Governor’s dedication and leadership combating gun violence in our cities. New York State continues to set the benchmark for success in the battle to address the gun epidemic and the numbers don’t lie. Shootings are down 21% in New York City and gun involved homicides are the lowest on record. As we forge ahead, New York will continue to lead with an emphasis on keeping our communities safe.”

    Assemblymember Chantel Jackson said, “As someone who has seen firsthand the pain gun violence inflicts on our communities, I commend Governor Hochul for formalizing New York’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This is not just policy, this is about protecting lives, uplifting neighborhoods, and ensuring families can feel safe in their own homes. The data speaks for itself, we’re shown that when we invest in prevention, support our communities, and take a comprehensive approach, we save lives. New York is showing the nation what it means to prioritize public safety, and I am proud to stand alongside this effort.”

    Queens Borough President Donovan Richards Jr. said, “Gun violence has claimed far too many lives and torn apart far too many families across our city. As someone whose career was kick-started by the loss of a close friend to gun violence, I’m proud to work alongside Governor Hochul and all our city and community partners to drive down shootings and save lives in our neighborhoods. From building a new 116th Precinct to addressing the root causes of crime to now codifying the state’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention, we are delivering on a data-driven, community-based approach to gun violence that keeps New York neighborhoods and families safe. The work is never over, however, and these tireless efforts will continue uninterrupted.”

    New York City Council Member Keith Powers said, “Gun violence is a heartbreaking public health crisis. I’m proud that New York has some of the strongest gun safety laws in the country, which are critical to keeping our communities safe. The state’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention leads the way on ensuring guns don’t get into the hands of those who could do harm, and I am glad that it is now a codified part of our state’s efforts to curb violence from firearms.”

    Embedded Flickr Album

    New York City Council Member Kevin C. Riley said, “As a Council Member representing communities deeply impacted by gun violence, I commend Governor Hochul for making the Office of Gun Violence Prevention permanent in New York State law. This office strengthens our ability to invest in life-saving, community-based solutions that address the root causes of violence. We know that public safety is about more than policing; it is about prevention, healing, and opportunity. I look forward to continuing this critical work alongside our state partners to protect our neighborhoods and uplift our youth.”

    New York City Council Member Carlina Rivera said, “New York and our nation continue to face the public health crisis of gun violence. Too many residents still live in fear, and we must double down on comprehensive policies, investments, and community partnerships to stop the violence. I commend Governor Hochul for codifying New York’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention into law, a vital step that will strengthen coordination and expand proven prevention strategies.”

    New York City Council Member Rita Joseph said, “As a mother, an educator, and a proud representative of a community that has felt the devastating impact of gun violence, I wholeheartedly support Governor Hochul’s announcement to formalize the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This is the kind of bold, compassionate leadership we need—one that recognizes that public safety means investing in prevention, healing, and community. I look forward to working in partnership with the state to ensure that our young people can grow up in neighborhoods free from the threat of gun violence.”

    District Attorneys Association of the State of New York President and Rensselaer County District Attorney Mary Pat Donnelly said, “New York State’s prosecutors appreciate Governor Hochul’s commitment to curbing gun violence in our State. My own county, Rensselaer, is one of the 21 counties that are part of the Gun Involved Violence Elimination (GIVE) initiative that focuses on the reduction of firearm-related homicides and shootings in communities outside of New York City. The support from this program and others led by the Division of Criminal Justice Services has been successful in reducing gun violence and in enhancing gun-involved crime reduction strategies. Along with my fellow District Attorneys and our larger law enforcement community, I look forward to continued partnerships with our state related to tackling gun crimes and supporting victims of those crimes.”

    Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Jr., said, “While shootings are down 69% in Manhattan compared to this time in 2021, we will not take our eye off the ball. Permanently codifying the Office of Gun Violence Prevention is an important measure to ensure a coordinated response across all corners of the State, and the perfect way to close out gun violence awareness month. I thank Governor Hochul for her steadfast commitment to combatting gun violence.”

    Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez said, “Gun violence reached a record low in Brooklyn last year, but we cannot take that progress for granted. A dedicated Office of Gun Violence Prevention will give New York the tools to better coordinate responses, support communities, and develop data-driven strategies to save lives. I commend the Legislature for passing this important and proactive public safety legislation, and I applaud Governor Hochul for signing it into law.”

    Bronx District Attorney Darcel D. Clark said, “One shooting victim is too many so anything we can do to prevent gun violence must be done. Governor Hochul’s strategies to reduce the harm and heartbreak in our community are concrete steps. But efforts must be made to improve opportunities for our youth and to stop the flow of firearms so they do not get into the hands of children.”

    Richmond County District Attorney Michael E. McMahon said, “Although recorded shootings are at a historic low so far this year on Staten Island – one shooting is one shooting too many, and law enforcement needs all the help it can get to eradicate the scourge of gun violence from our communities. From taking nearly 800 firearms off our streets through our gun buyback partnership with the NYPD to implementing precision prosecution in the courtroom, the men and women of my office are committed to removing illegal firearms from our communities and holding those who dare use these dangerous weapons accountable under the law. However, more must be done to prevent acts of gun violence and protect New Yorkers from its deadly consequences. I commend Governor Hochul for codifying the New York State Office of Gun Violence Prevention and for her continued commitment to keeping Staten Islanders and all New Yorkers safe from the threat of gun violence.”

    Newly released data comes from the 28 police departments outside of New York City participating in the state’s Gun Involved Violence Elimination (GIVE) initiative. Cities including Albany, Buffalo and Rochester all reported double-digit reductions in both shooting incidents involving injury and the number of individuals shot. In May 2025, four individuals were killed by gun violence across these jurisdictions, down from 13 in May 2024.

    To build on this progress, OGVP will launch a statewide safe storage public awareness campaign and make $5 million available for community-based organizations to provide safe spaces for youth mentorship, mental health services, and recreational programming in the coming months. The awareness campaign will promote responsible gun ownership and distribute free gun locks to help prevent firearm-related injuries and deaths, especially among children and teens.

    About the Office of Gun Violence Prevention
    The New York State Office of Gun Violence Prevention (OGVP), housed within the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), leads a coordinated statewide approach to preventing gun violence. Its mission is to build a comprehensive, equity-driven public health model that addresses the root causes of violence by strengthening communities and public systems. OGVP plays a central role in New York’s broader violence prevention ecosystem, partnering with the Department of Health (DOH), the Office of Children and Family Services (OFCS), the Office of Mental Health (OMH), the Office of Victim Services (OVS), and State and local stakeholders across New York, including the New York City Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD), and Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH). Visit the Office of Gun Violence Prevention webpage to learn more.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Blocks Apple’s Attempt to Avoid Answering for Anticompetitive Conduct

    Source: US State of California

    Monday, June 30, 2025

    Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

    Apple builds its iPhone empire by making it harder for its users to leave, rather than by making it more attractive for them to stay

    OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, along with the U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of 20 attorneys general, successfully blocked an attempt by Apple to dismiss the coalition’s lawsuit against the company’s anticompetitive behavior related to iPhone smartphones. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the lawsuit alleges Apple purposefully makes it difficult for non-Apple apps and products to operate with the iPhone, resulting in higher prices for consumers and harm to competition in the smartphone industry. Apple’s conduct has hampered innovation, limited consumer choice, and made switching to other smartphones unnecessarily difficult and expensive for consumers.

    “Apple is dominating the market because it has created a monopoly that insulates itself from competitors and makes it hard for consumers to leave — not because it is competing on the merits. These actions are anticompetitive and illegal,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I am proud of my office’s work with state and federal partners to hold Big Tech accountable for their harm to consumers and to promote vital innovation and competition.”

    ANTITRUST AND YOU:

    Antitrust enforcement is an essential component of a healthy economy. Competitive marketplaces established through antitrust vigilance help consumers by ensuring fair prices for goods and services, an array of products to choose from, quality goods and services, and the steady introduction of innovative new products. As part of the Attorney General’s commitment to enforce antitrust laws, the California Department of Justice has just launched its new Antitrust Complaint Form! Please click here to report anticompetitive conduct that potentially violates the antitrust laws.

    A copy of the opinion is available here. 

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI: Willis Lease Finance Corporation Completes Sale of Consultancy and Advisory Arm to Joint Venture with Mitsui & Co.

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    COCONUT CREEK, Fla., June 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Willis Lease Finance Corporation (NASDAQ: WLFC) (“WLFC” or the “Company”), a leading lessor of commercial aircraft engines and global provider of aviation services, announced today the successful close of its previously reported sale of Bridgend Asset Management Limited (“BAML”), its consultancy and advisory arm, to Willis Mitsui & Co. Engine Support Limited (“WMES”), the Company’s long-standing joint venture with Mitsui & Co., Ltd. (“Mitsui”).

    After the closing, BAML will be officially renamed Willis Mitsui & Co. Asset Management Limited (“WAML”), reflecting its new position within the joint venture structure and its expanded strategic role going forward.

    This transaction strengthens the WMES platform by integrating technical consultancy and records management services into its operations, enhancing its capabilities, reach, and efficiency across aviation asset management. WMES, established in 2011 and headquartered in Dublin, now manages assets totaling approximately $380 million, a figure expected to grow with its expanded service offerings.

    “This is a milestone for WLFC and our partnership with Mitsui,” said Austin C. Willis, Chief Executive Officer of WLFC. “It is the first step towards closer collaboration and significant growth in our joint venture, WMES.”

    “With this transaction, we deepen our collaboration with WLFC and expand the scope of WMES,” shared Yuichi Nagata, General Manager of the Aerospace Business Division at Mitsui. “This positions us to better serve the growing demands of the global aviation market and solidifies the joint venture’s role as a key platform for delivering comprehensive engine-related services.”

    WLFC remains a 50% owner of WMES and will continue to leverage its services to support its leasing operations while focusing on strategic initiatives to grow its aviation portfolio.

    Willis Lease Finance Corporation

    Willis Lease Finance Corporation (“WLFC”) leases large and regional spare commercial aircraft engines, auxiliary power units and aircraft to airlines, aircraft engine manufacturers and maintenance, repair, and overhaul providers worldwide. These leasing activities are integrated with engine and aircraft trading, engine lease pools and asset management services through Willis Asset Management Limited, as well as various end-of-life solutions for engines and aviation materials provided through Willis Aeronautical Services, Inc. Through Willis Engine Repair Center®, Jet Centre by Willis, and Willis Aviation Services Limited, the Company’s service offerings include Part 145 engine maintenance, aircraft line and base maintenance, aircraft disassembly, parking and storage, airport FBO and ground and cargo handling services. Willis Sustainable Fuels intends to develop, build and operate projects to help decarbonize aviation.

    Except for historical information, the matters discussed in this press release contain forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Do not unduly rely on forward-looking statements, which give only expectations about the future and are not guarantees. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and we undertake no obligation to update them to reflect any change in the Company’s expectations or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which the forward-looking statement is based, except as required by law. Our actual results may differ materially from the results discussed in forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause such a difference include, but are not limited to: the effects on the airline industry and the global economy of events such as war, terrorist activity and the COVID-19 pandemic; changes in oil prices, rising inflation and other disruptions to world markets; trends in the airline industry and our ability to capitalize on those trends, including growth rates of markets and other economic factors; risks associated with owning and leasing jet engines and aircraft; our ability to successfully negotiate equipment purchases, sales and leases, to collect outstanding amounts due and to control costs and expenses; changes in interest rates and availability of capital, both to us and our customers; our ability to continue to meet changing customer demands; regulatory changes affecting airline operations, aircraft maintenance, accounting standards and taxes; the market value of engines and other assets in our portfolio; and risks detailed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and other continuing and current reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is advisable, however, to consult any further disclosures the Company makes on related subjects in such filings. These statements constitute the Company’s cautionary statements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

    CONTACT: Lynn Mailliard Kohler
    Director, Global Corporate Communications
      415.328.4798

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Willis Lease Finance Corporation Completes Sale of Consultancy and Advisory Arm to Joint Venture with Mitsui & Co.

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    COCONUT CREEK, Fla., June 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Willis Lease Finance Corporation (NASDAQ: WLFC) (“WLFC” or the “Company”), a leading lessor of commercial aircraft engines and global provider of aviation services, announced today the successful close of its previously reported sale of Bridgend Asset Management Limited (“BAML”), its consultancy and advisory arm, to Willis Mitsui & Co. Engine Support Limited (“WMES”), the Company’s long-standing joint venture with Mitsui & Co., Ltd. (“Mitsui”).

    After the closing, BAML will be officially renamed Willis Mitsui & Co. Asset Management Limited (“WAML”), reflecting its new position within the joint venture structure and its expanded strategic role going forward.

    This transaction strengthens the WMES platform by integrating technical consultancy and records management services into its operations, enhancing its capabilities, reach, and efficiency across aviation asset management. WMES, established in 2011 and headquartered in Dublin, now manages assets totaling approximately $380 million, a figure expected to grow with its expanded service offerings.

    “This is a milestone for WLFC and our partnership with Mitsui,” said Austin C. Willis, Chief Executive Officer of WLFC. “It is the first step towards closer collaboration and significant growth in our joint venture, WMES.”

    “With this transaction, we deepen our collaboration with WLFC and expand the scope of WMES,” shared Yuichi Nagata, General Manager of the Aerospace Business Division at Mitsui. “This positions us to better serve the growing demands of the global aviation market and solidifies the joint venture’s role as a key platform for delivering comprehensive engine-related services.”

    WLFC remains a 50% owner of WMES and will continue to leverage its services to support its leasing operations while focusing on strategic initiatives to grow its aviation portfolio.

    Willis Lease Finance Corporation

    Willis Lease Finance Corporation (“WLFC”) leases large and regional spare commercial aircraft engines, auxiliary power units and aircraft to airlines, aircraft engine manufacturers and maintenance, repair, and overhaul providers worldwide. These leasing activities are integrated with engine and aircraft trading, engine lease pools and asset management services through Willis Asset Management Limited, as well as various end-of-life solutions for engines and aviation materials provided through Willis Aeronautical Services, Inc. Through Willis Engine Repair Center®, Jet Centre by Willis, and Willis Aviation Services Limited, the Company’s service offerings include Part 145 engine maintenance, aircraft line and base maintenance, aircraft disassembly, parking and storage, airport FBO and ground and cargo handling services. Willis Sustainable Fuels intends to develop, build and operate projects to help decarbonize aviation.

    Except for historical information, the matters discussed in this press release contain forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Do not unduly rely on forward-looking statements, which give only expectations about the future and are not guarantees. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and we undertake no obligation to update them to reflect any change in the Company’s expectations or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which the forward-looking statement is based, except as required by law. Our actual results may differ materially from the results discussed in forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause such a difference include, but are not limited to: the effects on the airline industry and the global economy of events such as war, terrorist activity and the COVID-19 pandemic; changes in oil prices, rising inflation and other disruptions to world markets; trends in the airline industry and our ability to capitalize on those trends, including growth rates of markets and other economic factors; risks associated with owning and leasing jet engines and aircraft; our ability to successfully negotiate equipment purchases, sales and leases, to collect outstanding amounts due and to control costs and expenses; changes in interest rates and availability of capital, both to us and our customers; our ability to continue to meet changing customer demands; regulatory changes affecting airline operations, aircraft maintenance, accounting standards and taxes; the market value of engines and other assets in our portfolio; and risks detailed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and other continuing and current reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is advisable, however, to consult any further disclosures the Company makes on related subjects in such filings. These statements constitute the Company’s cautionary statements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

    CONTACT: Lynn Mailliard Kohler
    Director, Global Corporate Communications
      415.328.4798

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: JAMining Upgrades Its Cloud Mining Platform to Meet Growing Global Crypto Demand

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Warwick, UK, June 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — JAMining, a leading cloud mining provider, today announced significant upgrades to its cloud mining platform. The overhaul enhances user experience, expands asset support, and integrates advanced mining algorithms — positioning the company at the forefront of digital asset mining as the global cryptocurrency industry accelerates.

    The announcement comes amid a surge in institutional adoption worldwide. From major pension funds entering the Bitcoin market to growing political support in the U.S. and UK, the demand for secure, compliant crypto infrastructure has never been higher.

    “Upgrading our platform allows us to serve a rapidly diversifying user base,” said Emma Carter, spokesperson for JAMining. “We are committed to enabling frictionless participation in crypto mining for individuals and institutions alike — without the hardware complexity.”

    A Strategic Response to Industry Growth

    The global cloud mining market is projected to reach $5.6 billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 13.8% from 2023, according to Market Research Future. Key drivers include increasing interest in decentralized finance (DeFi), Bitcoin’s institutionalization, and green mining initiatives.

    Key Platform Upgrades

    • Expanded Asset Mining: In addition to Bitcoin (BTC), users can now mine Ethereum (ETH), Solana (SOL), XRP, and Litecoin (LTC), allowing more diverse portfolio strategies.
    • Dynamic Profitability Calculator: A revamped profitability engine now offers real-time, transparent earnings projections based on current hash rates and energy efficiency metrics.
    • AI-Powered Optimization: JAMining has introduced machine learning algorithms that automatically reallocate resources across its mining pools based on market conditions — maximizing returns while reducing energy overhead.
    • Enhanced Security Protocols: Upgrades include multi-signature wallet integrations, IP-locking, and biometric 2FA, aligning with emerging cybersecurity best practices.

    Why It Matters?

    As crypto mining transitions from hobbyist activity to institutional-grade infrastructure, secure and advanced cloud mining access is critical. JAMining’s enhanced cloud platform offers exactly that — a user-friendly gateway for crypto participation without the burdens of physical mining hardware, or maintenance.

    About JAMining
    JAMining is a UK-based cloud mining service provider. The company offers a secure, scalable platform for mining leading digital assets, with a focus on compliance, transparency, and investor education. JAMining serves both retail and institutional clients seeking trustworthy access to the crypto mining ecosystem. For more information, visit: https://jamining.com

    Media Contact:
    Emma Carter
    Communications Director, JAMining
    Email – info@jamining.com

    Disclaimer: The information provided in this press release is not a solicitation for investment, nor is it intended as investment advice, financial advice, or trading advice. Cryptocurrency mining and staking involve risk. There is potential for loss of funds. It is strongly recommended you practice due diligence, including consultation with a professional financial advisor, before investing in or trading cryptocurrency and securities.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: JAMining Upgrades Its Cloud Mining Platform to Meet Growing Global Crypto Demand

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Warwick, UK, June 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — JAMining, a leading cloud mining provider, today announced significant upgrades to its cloud mining platform. The overhaul enhances user experience, expands asset support, and integrates advanced mining algorithms — positioning the company at the forefront of digital asset mining as the global cryptocurrency industry accelerates.

    The announcement comes amid a surge in institutional adoption worldwide. From major pension funds entering the Bitcoin market to growing political support in the U.S. and UK, the demand for secure, compliant crypto infrastructure has never been higher.

    “Upgrading our platform allows us to serve a rapidly diversifying user base,” said Emma Carter, spokesperson for JAMining. “We are committed to enabling frictionless participation in crypto mining for individuals and institutions alike — without the hardware complexity.”

    A Strategic Response to Industry Growth

    The global cloud mining market is projected to reach $5.6 billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 13.8% from 2023, according to Market Research Future. Key drivers include increasing interest in decentralized finance (DeFi), Bitcoin’s institutionalization, and green mining initiatives.

    Key Platform Upgrades

    • Expanded Asset Mining: In addition to Bitcoin (BTC), users can now mine Ethereum (ETH), Solana (SOL), XRP, and Litecoin (LTC), allowing more diverse portfolio strategies.
    • Dynamic Profitability Calculator: A revamped profitability engine now offers real-time, transparent earnings projections based on current hash rates and energy efficiency metrics.
    • AI-Powered Optimization: JAMining has introduced machine learning algorithms that automatically reallocate resources across its mining pools based on market conditions — maximizing returns while reducing energy overhead.
    • Enhanced Security Protocols: Upgrades include multi-signature wallet integrations, IP-locking, and biometric 2FA, aligning with emerging cybersecurity best practices.

    Why It Matters?

    As crypto mining transitions from hobbyist activity to institutional-grade infrastructure, secure and advanced cloud mining access is critical. JAMining’s enhanced cloud platform offers exactly that — a user-friendly gateway for crypto participation without the burdens of physical mining hardware, or maintenance.

    About JAMining
    JAMining is a UK-based cloud mining service provider. The company offers a secure, scalable platform for mining leading digital assets, with a focus on compliance, transparency, and investor education. JAMining serves both retail and institutional clients seeking trustworthy access to the crypto mining ecosystem. For more information, visit: https://jamining.com

    Media Contact:
    Emma Carter
    Communications Director, JAMining
    Email – info@jamining.com

    Disclaimer: The information provided in this press release is not a solicitation for investment, nor is it intended as investment advice, financial advice, or trading advice. Cryptocurrency mining and staking involve risk. There is potential for loss of funds. It is strongly recommended you practice due diligence, including consultation with a professional financial advisor, before investing in or trading cryptocurrency and securities.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Secretary-General’s remarks at the International Business Forum at the Conference on Financing for Development [bilingual, as delivered; scroll down for all-English]

    Source: United Nations secretary general

    This Forum reflects a fundamental fact.
     
    Development is everyone’s business.
     
    And the private sector is an essential partner in helping countries climb the development ladder, and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
     
    Businesses are not just engines of jobs and economic growth.
     
    They help propel the innovation, technology and investment that development demands.
     
    We are here to boost support for initiatives that benefit people and planet.
     
    We meet against the backdrop of an incredibly challenging global environment.
     
    As we gather in Sevilla, trade barriers and macroeconomic risks are rising. 
     
    Major aid cuts are making a bad situation even worse.
     
    Mistrust and geopolitical divisions are blocking effective global solutions.
     
    And the financing gap for the Sustainable Development Goals has ballooned to $4 trillion.
     
    When the world came together for this conference 10 years ago in Addis Ababa, countries recognized that achieving the Goals was impossible without mobilizing private capital at scale.
     
    One decade later, we continue to fall short.
     
    Last year, investment in infrastructure in developing countries dropped by 35 per cent — including in key sectors like renewable energy, water and sanitation.
     
    And foreign direct investment has declined two years in a row, with investment flows largely bypassing Least Developed Countries altogether.
     
    We need to create the conditions to change course.
     
    And that begins here in Spain.
     
    The Sevilla Commitment document includes important steps to get the engine of development revving again:
     
    Through new domestic and global commitments that can channel public and private finance to the areas of greatest need…
     
    By overhauling the world’s approach to debt to make borrowing work in service of sustainable development…
     
    And by reforming the global financial architecture to reflect today’s realities and the urgent needs of developing countries.
     
    The Sevilla Commitment also puts forward a number of specific actions to unlock private sector investment in sustainable development.
     
    This includes steps to strengthen the way we blend public and private capital together to maximize the use of public money in crowding-in private funds.
     
    It includes new approaches to manage currency risk that prevent otherwise promising investment opportunities from securing the capital required.
     
    And it includes a call to review financial regulations to ensure that risk weightings are well-designed, and help — not hinder — institutional investors from embracing projects in frontier markets.
     
    These are significant steps, informed by lessons learned over the past 10 years.
     
    When, one looks at today’s world, the crises in the ODA, the crises in the global funds available, it is absolutely evident that we need to be able to multiply the resources available for investments.

    And the main obligation, in my opinion, of public development banks, most national and international, should be today concentrated, not essentially, in their operations, and I understand the pressure of any bureaucracy to do their own things, but those public funds available in developing banks, should be more and more put to work to multiply resources through the risking private finances and private investments.

    Giving guaranties, stablishing coalitions, in which they are the first risk takers, and creating the conditions to massively increase the massive private finance and private investment in countries in which without the necessary derisking it is practically impossible to see enough development.
     
    This is a new mentally that we need to guaranty in the investment banks, the pubic investment banks, both national and international.
     
    Señoras y senõres,
                                                                            
    En todo momento, contamos con el liderazgo y la visión de todos ustedes para llevar adelante el espíritu de colaboración y adoptar soluciones audaces.
     
    Al reunir a los líderes de los sectores público y privado, a los reguladores y a los bancos de desarrollo, podemos garantizar que esta conferencia no es un final, sino un principio.
     
    El comienzo de una nueva era de acción y colaboración en algunos de los problemas más urgentes a los que se enfrenta hoy nuestro mundo.
     
    Y un nuevo amanecer para la manera en que se financia el progreso del desarrollo en todo el mundo.
     
    Gracias a todos ustedes por participar en este importante esfuerzo. Espero que la participación conjunta de los sectores público y privado pueda multiplicar los recursos que tenemos.

    Sabiendo que mucha más inversión es necesaria en el mundo de hoy, pero que hay mecanismos que permiten que los fondos públicos disponibles movilicen muchísimo más que hoy la financiación y la inversión privada. 

    *****
    [All-English]

    This Forum reflects a fundamental fact.

    Development is everyone’s business.

    And the private sector is an essential partner in helping countries climb the development ladder, and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

    Businesses are not just engines of jobs and economic growth.

    They help propel the innovation, technology and investment that development demands.

    We are here to boost support for initiatives that benefit people and planet.

    We meet against the backdrop of an incredibly challenging global environment.

    As we gather in Sevilla, trade barriers and macroeconomic risks are rising. 

    Major aid cuts are making a bad situation even worse.

    Mistrust and geopolitical divisions are blocking effective global solutions.

    And the financing gap for the Sustainable Development Goals has ballooned to $4 trillion.

    When the world came together for this conference 10 years ago in Addis Ababa, countries recognized that achieving the Goals was impossible without mobilizing private capital at scale.

    One decade later, we continue to fall short.

    Last year, investment in infrastructure in developing countries dropped by 35 per cent — including in key sectors like renewable energy, water and sanitation.

    And foreign direct investment has declined two years in a row, with investment flows largely bypassing Least Developed Countries altogether.

    We need to create the conditions to change course.

    And that begins here in Spain.

    The Sevilla Commitment document includes important steps to get the engine of development revving again:

    Through new domestic and global commitments that can channel public and private finance to the areas of greatest need…

    By overhauling the world’s approach to debt to make borrowing work in service of sustainable development…

    And by reforming the global financial architecture to reflect today’s realities and the urgent needs of developing countries.

    The Sevilla Commitment also puts forward a number of specific actions to unlock private sector investment in sustainable development.

    This includes steps to strengthen the way we blend public and private capital together to maximize the use of public money in crowding-in private funds.

    It includes new approaches to manage currency risk that prevent otherwise promising investment opportunities from securing the capital required.

    And it includes a call to review financial regulations to ensure that risk weightings are well-designed, and help — not hinder — institutional investors from embracing projects in frontier markets.

    These are significant steps, informed by lessons learned over the past 10 years.

    When, one looks at today’s world, the crises in the ODA, the crises in the global funds available, it is absolutely evident that we need to be able to multiply the resources available for investments.

    And the main obligation, in my opinion, of public development banks, most national and international, should be today concentrated, not essentially, in their operations, and I understand the pressure of any bureaucracy to do their own things, but those public funds available in developing banks, should be more and more put to work to multiply resources through the risking private finances and private investments.

    Giving guaranties, stablishing coalitions, in which they are the first risk takers, and creating the conditions to massively increase the massive private finance and private investment in countries in which without the necessary derisking it is practically impossible to see enough development.

    This is a new mentally that we need to guaranty in the investment banks, the pubic investment banks, both national and international.

    Ladies and gentleman,

    Throughout, we are counting on the leadership and vision of all of you to carry forward the spirit of collaboration and bold solutions.

    By uniting public and private sector leaders, regulators and development banks, we can ensure that this conference is not an end, but rather a beginning.

    The beginning of a new era of action and collaboration on some of the most urgent issues facing our world today.

    And a new dawn for how we finance development progress around the world.

    Thank you all for being part of this important effort. I hope that the joint participation of the public and private sectors can multiply the resources we have.

    Knowing that much more investment is needed in today’s world, but that there are mechanisms that allow available public funds to mobilize much more private financing and investment than today.
     
     

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: New research organisations established on 1 July

    Source: New Zealand Government

    Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Dr Shane Reti says today marks a major milestone for New Zealand’s science and innovation sector with the launch of three new science organisations designed to unlock innovation, drive economic growth, and improve the lives of hardworking Kiwis. 
    “Science, innovation and technology are the engine rooms of a productive economy and our Government is committed to powering up our scientists and innovators to deliver for New Zealanders,” says Dr Reti. 
    “From today, six Crown Research Institutes will merge to form two new entities: the Bioeconomy Science Institute and the Earth Science Institute. Meanwhile, ESR will refocus its mission to become the Public Health and Forensic Science Institute.
    “These changes are about sharpening our focus and lifting performance. By bringing together complementary research skills and infrastructure, we’re enabling greater collaboration, better alignment with Government priorities, and stronger commercial outcomes.
    “These new organisations will be set up to deliver real-world value, creating jobs, boosting exports, and helping New Zealand compete globally.”
    The new institutes will remain Crown companies, but with a renewed mandate to deliver economic benefits for New Zealand. 
    “This reform is a practical step to ensure our science sector is agile, responsive, and focused on outcomes that matter – jobs, growth and innovation. We’re backing our scientists to turn ideas into impact, and to help New Zealand lead in areas like biotechnology, climate resilience, and public health,” says Dr Reti.
    Dr Reti also acknowledged the contributions of outgoing Chairs and Board members of the seven Crown Research Institutes, whose leadership has laid the groundwork for this new chapter. He extended thanks to the dedicated staff across the institutes, whose work continues to make a meaningful difference to New Zealand’s economy and communities.
    “This Government is committed to building a science system that delivers results. These reforms are about unlocking the full potential of our research sector to fuel economic growth, drive innovation, and secure a more prosperous future for all New Zealanders,” Dr Reti says. 

    MIL OSI New Zealand News