NewzIntel.com

    • Checkout Page
    • Contact Us
    • Default Redirect Page
    • Frontpage
    • Home-2
    • Home-3
    • Lost Password
    • Member Login
    • Member LogOut
    • Member TOS Page
    • My Account
    • NewzIntel Alert Control-Panel
    • NewzIntel Latest Reports
    • Post Views Counter
    • Privacy Policy
    • Public Individual Page
    • Register
    • Subscription Plan
    • Thank You Page

Category: Environment

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: First ever MPA byelaw prosecution secures guilty plea and £40,000 financial order

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    News story

    First ever MPA byelaw prosecution secures guilty plea and £40,000 financial order

    The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) has secured the first successful prosecution for a contravention of an MMO marine protected area (MPA) byelaw.

    On 2 May 2025, at Newcastle Magistrates Court, Christoph Gouy, Master of the French-registered fishing vessel Pierre D’Ambre, pleaded guilty to using bottom towed fishing gear in a prohibited area of the Offshore Brighton Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) in April 2024 and other related offences.  

    The case resulted in the master and owner receiving over £40,000 in fines, victim surcharge and costs for illegal bottom towed fishing activity within the Offshore Brighton Marine Conservation Zone and other linked offences. 

    The Marine Protected Areas Bottom Towed Fishing Gear Byelaw 2023 came into force on 22 March 2024. A 50-day notification period preceded the byelaw’s implementation and was widely communicated. The day before the offences took place the vessel was also notified about the upcoming restrictions. 

    The Offshore Brighton MCZ, located approximately 45km south of Selsey Bill, West Sussex, protects 862km² of biodiverse seabed habitats including coarse sands, gravels, and exposed bedrock. These habitats support a variety of marine life essential for a healthy and functioning marine ecosystem, including burrowing worms and sea anemones. 

    The MMO introduced the byelaw following a detailed impact assessment, evidence gathering and public consultation on proposed measures for 13 marine protected areas (MPAs). The ban on bottom towed fishing gear in specified areas within these MPAs is in place to ensure the conservation and recovery of these vulnerable habitats and species. 

    Peter Clark, Director of Operations at MMO, said:  

    This landmark case demonstrates MMO’s commitment to protecting our precious marine environment. Effective enforcement of byelaws like this one is essential to ensure our MPAs deliver real ecosystem benefits. Healthy seas are the foundation of a thriving, sustainable fishing industry. This successful prosecution shows that we will act decisively to uphold the rules and safeguard the long-term future of our marine environment.

    This case marks a significant step towards MMOs upholding the commitment to sustainable fisheries management and marine conservation. 

    Find out more: www.gov.uk/marine-protected-areas

    Share this page

    The following links open in a new tab

    • Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)
    • Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

    Updates to this page

    Published 6 May 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

    May 7, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: U.S. sustainable aviation fuel production takes off as new capacity comes online

    Source: US Energy Information Administration

    In-brief analysis

    May 6, 2025

    Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Monthly; company announcements and trade press
    Note: Other Biofuels includes sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), renewable heating oil, renewable naphtha, renewable propane, renewable gasoline, and other emerging biofuels that are in various stages of development and commercialization. SAF production capacity is an estimate based on company announcements and trade press and only includes hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) SAF. We do not publish SAF production capacity data.

    Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production is growing in the United States as new capacity comes online. U.S. production of Other Biofuels, the category we use to capture SAF in our Petroleum Supply Monthly, approximately doubled from December 2024 to February 2025.

    SAF is an alternative to petroleum jet fuel. It’s produced from agricultural and waste feedstocks and is consumed in blends with petroleum jet fuel. Investments in SAF have increased because of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), federal tax credits, and state programs and tax credits incentivizing use of the fuel.

    In addition to SAF, our Other Biofuels category includes renewable heating oil, renewable naphtha, renewable propane, renewable gasoline, and other emerging biofuels that are in various stages of development and commercialization.

    Prior to 2025, renewable naphtha and renewable propane, which are byproducts of renewable diesel production, made up most of Other Biofuels production and was growing because of growing renewable diesel production. SAF made up only a small portion of Other Biofuels production because of limited production capacity. At the beginning of 2024, U.S. SAF production capacity was only around 2,000 barrels per day (b/d), with just two plants capable of producing SAF: World Energy’s plant in Paramount, California, and Montana Renewables’ plant in Great Falls, Montana.

    U.S. SAF production capacity increased by about 25,000 b/d in late 2024. Phillips 66 completed its 10,000-b/d SAF project in Rodeo, California, in the third quarter of 2024 (3Q24), before temporarily halting production in 4Q24. Diamond Green Diesel completed its 15,000-b/d SAF project in Port Arthur, Texas, in 4Q24.

    A couple of smaller projects will bring additional SAF production capacity online in 2025. New Rise Renewables announced it began SAF production at its plant in Reno, Nevada, in February 2025, adding up to 3,000 b/d of SAF production. Par Pacific plans to begin SAF production at its plant in Kapolei, Hawaii, in the second half of the year, adding about 2,000 b/d of SAF production capacity.

    With SAF production capacity now around 30,000 b/d and growing in 2025, SAF will likely drive significant growth in Other Biofuels production and make up most of U.S. Other Biofuels production.

    In January, U.S. production of Other Biofuels reached 33,000 b/d, nearly 30% more than the previous record high set in September 2024. Production increased another 30% in February to 44,000 b/d. In our latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, we forecast that U.S. production of Other Biofuels will more than double between 2024 and 2025 and increase by about another 20% in 2026. Although we do not publish a forecast for each fuel that makes up the category, we expect increased SAF production to drive most of that growth. Despite strong growth in SAF on a percentage basis, the absolute volumes will remain relatively low, making up less than 2% of about 1.7 million b/d of U.S. jet fuel consumption in 2025 and about 2% in 2026.

    Principal contributor: Jimmy Troderman

    MIL OSI USA News –

    May 7, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. LaMalfa Applauds Passage of Legislation to Repeal California’s Extreme Vehicle Emissions Mandates

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Doug LaMalfa 1st District of California

    Washington, D.C.—This week, the House passed three Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions to overturn the Biden Administration’s approval of California’s vehicle emissions mandates, including the Advanced Clean Cars II regulation, the Advance Clean Trucks regulation, and the Omnibus Low-NOx Emissions rule. Previously approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), these rules allow California to impose aggressive regulations on cars and trucks that drive up costs and restrict consumer choice in California and nationwide.

    The three CRAs, co-led by Congressman Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale), and introduced by Representatives John Joyce (R-PA), John James (R-MI), and Jay Obernolte (R-CA) repeal these unrealistic mandates, preventing California from being able to force these costly policies onto the rest of the country.

    “Today’s vote is a big win for drivers, businesses, and consumers across the country. California’s extreme emissions mandates would have made cars and trucks more expensive and less available for everyone, not just in our state but nationwide,” said Rep. LaMalfa. “Consumers would see massive increases in costs if they chose a non-electric vehicle, and availability of some models has already been severely restricted in California. By passing these resolutions, the House made it clear that we won’t let one state’s radical agenda dictate what Americans can drive. People deserve the freedom to choose the vehicles that work best for them—not to be forced into unaffordable electric vehicles that may not work for them. I was pleased to see the House stand up for commonsense to protect hardworking families from even higher costs. By passing this Congressional Review Act, California will not be allowed to make this type of rule without a complete change in federal law.”

    Background

    Under the Clean Air Act, states are generally prohibited from setting their own tailpipe emission standards for cars and trucks. However, California has a unique exemption under Section 209, which allows the state to establish its own emissions regulations if it submits a waiver to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and receives approval. Once granted, these California standards can also be adopted by other states under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act. Currently, about a dozen states follow California’s emissions policies, effectively turning the state’s regulations into a nationwide mandate.

    The Biden administration approved several controversial waivers requested by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), allowing the state to impose extreme emissions rules that impact car and truck costs and availability across the country. These include:

    • Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC2) – Approved in December 2024, this regulation mandates that 35% of new car sales be zero-emission by 2026, increasing to 100% by 2035. At least 12 states have already adopted ACC2. Failure to meet this goal means a maximum penalty of $25,000 per non-compliant vehicle sold to consumers.
    • Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) – Approved in March 2023, this regulation forces truck manufacturers and retailers to meet strict zero-emission quotas by 2035, including 55% of Class 2B-3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4-8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales. At least 11 states have adopted ACT.
    • Omnibus Low-NOx Emissions Rule – Approved in December 2024, this regulation imposes aggressive emissions reductions on medium- and heavy-duty truck and other engines, requiring NOx emissions to be cut by 75% below current standards for Model Year 2024-2026 compared to 2010 levels and particulate matter emissions to be cut by 50%.

    Congressman Doug LaMalfa is Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus and a lifelong farmer representing California’s First Congressional District, including Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama and Yuba Counties.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

    May 7, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Environmental issues in the next multiannual financial framework and the future European Competitiveness Fund – E-000719/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission considers that tackling environmental issues and strengthening competitiveness deserve the highest attention. This is highlighted in the Mission Letters to the Commissioner for Climate, Net Zero and Clean Growth[1] and the Commissioner for Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy[2] by improving Europe’s natural capital, protecting the natural world, boosting the circular economy and ensuring water resilience are intrinsic parts of the EU priorities, from climate change, security, competitiveness or food security and sovereignty.

    As indicated in the Commission Communication on ‘The road to the next multiannual financial framework’[3], further efforts are needed to achieve a true policy-based budget to ensure synergies between EU policies and the financial action of the EU. The next long-term budget should focus on objectives where EU action is mostly needed, including investment to support competitiveness and to achieve the EU’s climate and environmental goals.

    The planned European Competitiveness Fund[4] will offer strong support to innovative industries for sustainable investment and a one-stop-shop simplified access to EU funds. Moreover, the ambition of the Clean Industrial Deal is to make the EU the global leader on circular economy by 2030, and to use financing as a business driver.

    The ‘green toolbox’ designed to support green policies across the whole EU budget includes the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ principle, which all EU programmes must take into account, wherever relevant and possible, under the EU Financial Regulation[5].

    • [1] https://commission.europa.eu/about/organisation/college-commissioners/wopke-hoekstra_en
    • [2] https://commission.europa.eu/about/organisation/college-commissioners/jessika-roswall_en
    • [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=celex:52025DC0046
    • [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0030
    • [5] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202402509
    Last updated: 6 May 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    May 7, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Specialized sponge recycles minerals from stormwater for reuse in agriculture and other industries

    Source: US Government research organizations

    The nanocomposite design can absorb valuable heavy metals and phosphate that would otherwise be pollutants in water

    Funded by multiple grants from the U.S. National Science Foundation, researchers created a functional sponge that can soak up certain pollutants from water and then release them on demand, presenting a reusable and low-cost solution for cleaning storm runoff while simultaneously recovering valuable metals like zinc and copper, as well as phosphate.

    Using surface iron oxide nanoparticles specialized for capturing specific contaminants, the sponge collects the minerals and then discharges them only when triggered by changes in pH, and it can be used multiple times. The findings were achieved by researchers at Northwestern University and published in the American Chemical Society’s journal Environmental Science and Technology Water.

    “The technology can be used as a universal sorbent or ‘catch-all,’ or it can be tailored to certain groups of contaminants like metals, plastics or nutrients,” says Vinayak Dravid, a research author and Northwestern professor of materials science and engineering. In previous iterations, the sponge material has successfully pulled lead, microplastics and oil from water.

    Industrial manufacturing and agriculture, in particular, experience mineral and fertilizer loss due to runoff, leaving valuable nonrenewable resources as pollutants in bodies of water. Those resources include heavy metals like zinc and copper and also phosphate.

    Credit: Kelly Matuszewski, Northwestern University

    Illustration showing how the sponge nanocomposite material recovers phosphate and metals from water.

    Kelly Matuszewski, doctoral student and first author on the paper, found that lowering water pH flushed out the captured copper and zinc from the sponge. Inversely, raising water pH loosened the phosphates. After five uses of recycling these nutrients, the sponge still worked functionally while yielding water with untraceable levels of those pollutants.

    “We can’t just keep flushing these minerals down the toilet,” says Matuszewski. “We need to understand how they interact and find ways to actually utilize them.”

    Co-author Dravid has co-founded a startup to commercialize the sponge-based technology with additional NSF support through the Small Business Innovation Research program, which will further develop the material for real-life scenarios.

    The team has yet to account for biofilms, clogging or water flow dynamics on the sponge’s performance. They plan to explore those in future research while testing the maximum mineral levels the sponge can absorb.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    May 7, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: Russia and Turkey are wielding religion as soft power – but one patriarch is standing in their way

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katie Kelaidis, Research Fellow Institute of Orthodox Christian Studies, University of Cambridge

    Turkish nationalists are calling on the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to revoke the passport of Archbishop Elpidophoros of America, the highest ranking Greek Orthodox cleric in the US.

    As a Turkish citizen, the archbishop is one of the few clerics eligible to become the next Patriarch of Constantinople. The holder of this position is often called the “spiritual leader” of Eastern Orthodox Christians, though this status is contested.

    Critics of Elpidophoros believe he should be stripped of his Turkish citizenship for repeatedly referring to the Patriarch of Constantinople as “ecumenical”. This, which means the position represents a number of different Christian Churches, is a nod to the potential global authority of the office. Turkey does not recognise the patriarch’s ecumenical status.

    They also criticise Elpidophoros for using the name Constantinople instead of Istanbul (most recently during a Greek Independence Day celebration at the White House). This was the name of the city when it was the capital of the Ottoman empire.

    The situation might seem somewhere between petty and parochial – the concerns of a small and relatively unimportant corner of the world, or a momentary flare-up in the Greek-Turkish conflict. But this could not be further from the truth.

    The Patriarchate of Constantinople is a critical player in two volatile regions: the Middle East and eastern Europe. Both Turkey and Russia, regional powers in these unstable areas, have made religion a central component of their propaganda.

    They have each sought to present themselves as the guardian of their respective religious tradition, despite having spent much of the 20th century in various forms of state-sponsored hostility to religion. For Russia and Turkey, the Patriarchate of Constantinople stands as an obstacle to their preferred narratives.

    Religious politics

    Russia under Vladimir Putin and Turkey under Erdoğan have become deeply invested in promoting themselves as the guardians of traditional Christianity and Islam, respectively. By leveraging this position, they have garnered sympathy and support among people who were once indifferent or even hostile to them.

    Influential conservative commentators in the US such as Tucker Carlson and Rod Dreher have praised Putin’s “anti-woke” rhetoric. And some ultraconservative American men are reportedly converting to Russian Orthodoxy.

    Turkey, for its part, began establishing mosques and training imams abroad, including in western Europe, as early as the 1970s. But in the past 23 years, under the rule of the Justice and Development party (AKP), it has significantly expanded these efforts.

    The enemies Russia and Turkey claim to combat are both internal and external. Putin, Erdoğan and their aligned clerics, have been vocal in their denunciation of western “decadence”. This is usually represented by the liberal sexual and gender politics of western nations.

    Yet they have been just as adamant in opposing those within their own traditions. In Russia’s case, this has meant perceived liberalisers largely situated in the Hellenic world – not just the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but also the Patriarchate of Alexandria, as well as the Churches of Greece and Cyprus.

    For Turkey, this internal enemy has primarily taken the form of Saudi-backed Wahhabism, a strict, ultraconservative form of Sunni Islam.

    The international religious influence of Russia and Turkey depends on a specific national narrative. Russia must be not only a historically Orthodox nation, but the leading Orthodox nation – the rightful inheritor of the eastern Roman world.

    Likewise, Turkey must present itself as an explicitly and entirely Muslim nation, the heir to an Ottoman empire reimagined as far more homogeneous than it ever truly was.

    This requires both countries reject much of their 20th-century history. Neither Soviet communism nor the strict secularity of Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, fits the current plot. It also demands the rewriting of medieval and early modern histories.

    And for both, the Patriarch of Constantinople poses a significant problem. This is especially true if he is seen as anything more than a local ethnic leader, hence the objection to the use of “ecumenical” in his title.

    If the Patriarch of Constantinople is a global religious leader, then Moscow is not the undisputed head of the Orthodox world, nor is Turkey a homogeneously Muslim nation with a homogeneously Muslim past.

    Why the next patriarch matters

    Patriarch Bartholomew, the current Patriarch of Constantinople, ascended to the throne in 1991. He has been a moderate and modernising force in the Orthodox world and beyond. Bartholomew has championed issues such as environmentalism, inter-religious dialogue and human rights, while also opposing Russian aggression in Ukraine.

    Now Bartholomew is 85 years old, the conversation has turned to the question of his successor. The options are limited, as the next patriarch must be a Turkish citizen.

    If the patriarchate is to continue serving as a kind of opposition to Russian and Turkish expansionism, the next leader must also be a moderate. Should a more reactionary figure take the office, there is a real danger this counterbalance will be lost.

    For those who hope to resist Russian and Turkish aggression and to promote values such as human rights in the Orthodox world and Middle East, there is simply no better choice than Archbishop Elpidophoros.

    He has challenged Russian expansionism in Ukraine, defended democracy and pluralism and has taken a pastoral approach to the inclusion of LGBTQ+ people and women in the Church.

    Though the patriarch is a relatively obscure position in global terms, it is precisely because of the current global situation that there may be no more important religious leader than one who can exert influence across eastern Europe and the Middle East.

    The fact that allies of Putin and Erdoğan have joined in attacking Elpidophoros suggests not only that they do not want him to become the next Patriarch of Constantinople. It also suggests that western democracies should take a deep interest in who does.

    The patriarchate is a rejection of the historical lies upon which both Russian and Turkish soft power rest. Thus, the man who occupies the office must be up to the task.

    Katie Kelaidis 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. Russia and Turkey are wielding religion as soft power – but one patriarch is standing in their way – https://theconversation.com/russia-and-turkey-are-wielding-religion-as-soft-power-but-one-patriarch-is-standing-in-their-way-254247

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    May 7, 2025
  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Kajiado communities resist carbon offset land grabs disguised as climate action

    Source: Greenpeace Statement –

    Nairobi, Kenya — In a bold act of resistance, the Oldonyonyokie Group Ranch community in Kajiado County is pushing back against the latest wave of land grabs masquerading as climate action. The community is standing firm against carbon offset projects that threaten to displace Indigenous People and undermine centuries-old land rights, all in the name of so-called “climate finance.”

    At the center of the growing controversy are carbon market schemes promoted by companies such as Carbon Solve, Soil for the Future Africa, and Soil for the Future Tanzania. These entities are targeting community lands in Kajiado for carbon offsetting, continuing a trend already devastating communities across the border in Tanzania.

    Stop auctioning Maasai land to carbon traders and trophy hunters

    If you want to take action to protect the Maasai add your name to tens of thousands of people demanding justice.

    SIGN NOW

    In Tanzania’s Ngorongoro, Loliondo, Longido and Monduli, the Maasai are being violently evicted from their ancestral lands to make way for similar schemes.

    “This is climate colonialism, plain and simple,” said Amos Wemanya, Responsive Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Africa. “Communities that have lived in harmony with nature for generations are being pushed off their land so that foreign polluters can continue business as usual. Carbon offsetting is not a climate solution, it is a dangerous distraction that sells off our future.”

    Rather than reducing global emissions, carbon markets allow corporations, largely based in the Global North, to “offset” pollution through land grabs in the Global South. These schemes put a price tag on nature and make African communities bear the burden of a crisis they did not create, while enriching foreign middlemen and questionable local entities.

    The people of Oldonyonyokie have a long memory and are not easily deceived. They recall the case of Tata Chemicals Magadi Ltd, which was granted an initial 99-year lease on community land in 1928, and later received a 40-year extension in 2004. The lease, which involved over 224,000 acres, has long been a source of tension, with local communities raising concerns about inadequate consultation and limited benefits to the Maasai people.

    Disturbingly, some government officials are being used by the national government to facilitate the leasing and selling of land to private entities, without transparent community consultation or consent. This undermines democratic processes and violates the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

    Greenpeace Africa calls on Soil for the Future Africa and similar actors to immediately halt any attempts to force or impose projects on communities. Respect for Indigenous rights and community self-determination is non-negotiable.

    This is not just a local issue, it’s part of a global pattern of injustice. Greenpeace Africa is urging international solidarity and swift action to put an end to land grabs disguised as climate action. True climate solutions must protect people, not profits. That means:

    • Ending land grabs and forced evictions in the name of carbon offsetting
    • Protecting indigenous land rights and community livelihoods
    • Upholding real climate justice that centers food, energy, and land sovereignty
    • Holding historical polluters accountable for real emissions cuts

    From Kajiado to Loliondo, communities are saying: enough is enough. Africa is not for sale,” said Wemanya. “We call for a transition away from exploitative offsetting schemes toward climate solutions that center justice, local sovereignty, and real emissions cuts”.

    Greenpeace Africa stands in solidarity with the Oldonyonyokie Group Ranch and all African communities defending their land, dignity, and future against false climate solutions.

    ENDS

    For media inquiries, please contact:

    Sherie Gakii, Communications and Storytelling Manager, Greenpeace Africa, [email protected], +254702776749

    Greenpeace Africa Press Desk, [email protected]

    MIL OSI NGO –

    May 7, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: As Warren Buffett prepares to retire, does his investing philosophy have a future?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Angel Zhong, Professor of Finance, RMIT University

    Warren Buffett, the 94-year-old investing legend and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, has announced plans to step down at the end of this year.

    His departure will mark the end of an era for value investing, an investment approach built on buying quality companies at reasonable prices and holding them for the long term.

    Buffett’s approach transformed Berkshire Hathaway from a small textile business in the 1960s into a giant conglomerate now worth more than US$1.1 trillion (A$1.7 trillion).

    He built his fortune backing US industry in energy and insurance and American brands, including big stakes in household names such as Coca-Cola, American Express and Apple.

    At Berkshire’s annual meeting at the weekend, held in an arena with thousands of devoted investors, Buffett named Greg Abel as his successor.

    Abel, 62, is currently chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway Energy, as well as vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway’s vast non-insurance operations.

    He’s known for his disciplined, no-nonsense management style. The company’s board has now voted unanimously to approve the move.

    This changing of the guard comes at a pivotal moment. Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency has already delivered significant economic policy shifts.

    Meanwhile, questions about US economic dominance grow louder against China’s continued rise.

    The ‘Oracle of Omaha’

    Few names command as much respect in the world of finance as Warren Buffett. Born in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1930, Buffett displayed an early genius for numbers and investing. He bought his first stock at age 11.

    His investment philosophy – buying undervalued companies with strong fundamentals – would later earn him the nickname the “Oracle of Omaha” for his uncanny ability to predict market trends and identify winning investments years before others did.

    Value investing

    Buffett drew his investment approach from the value investment principles of British-born US economist Benjamin Graham.

    He preferred businesses with lasting advantages and a clear value proposition. Some of his key investments included insurance company GEICO, railroad company BNSF, and more recently Chinese electric vehicle maker BYD.

    He avoided speculative bubbles (such as the dotcom bubble of the late 1990s and, more recently, cryptocurrencies) and preached long-term patience to investors. As he famously wrote in a 1988 letter to shareholders:

    In fact, when we own portions of outstanding businesses with outstanding managements, our favorite holding period is forever.

    Buffett’s guidance helped Berkshire navigate many economic booms and recessions. Over his six decades at the helm, the company delivered impressive compounded annual returns of almost 20% – virtually double those of the S&P 500 index.

    Beyond financial success, Buffett championed ethical business practices and pledged to donate more than 99% of his wealth through the Giving Pledge, which he cofounded with Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates.




    Read more:
    How Warren Buffett’s enormous charitable gifts reflect the ‘inner scorecard’ that has guided him up to the billionaire’s planned retirement


    Challenges to Buffett’s strategy in today’s world

    In an op-ed for the New York Times in 2008, Buffett famously shared the maxim that guides his investment decisions:

    Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful.

    But his strategy thrived in an era of increasing globalisation, free trade, and US economic supremacy. The world has shifted since Buffett’s heyday.

    There are concerns about the recent underperformance of value investing. Technology companies now dominate older industries.

    This raises questions about whether those who succeed Buffett can spot the next major industry disruptors.

    America first?

    Trump’s return as US president heralds major changes in economic policy. Trade restrictions might hurt some of Berkshire’s international investments. However, these same policies might benefit Buffett’s US-focused investments.

    The idea of US economic superiority also faces new questions. China may overtake the US economy in the 2030s. The US share of global economic output has fallen from about 22% in 1980 to about 15% today.

    Buffett’s “never bet against America” mantra faces new scrutiny.

    Warren Buffett discusses trade deficits and protectionism on May 3.

    The challenges for Buffett’s successor

    Abel inherits a company with about US$348 billion (A$539 billion) in cash. That’s a serious amount of capital to deploy wisely amid global economic uncertainty and Trump’s trade war.

    Abel will likely maintain Berkshire’s core values while updating its approach. His challenges include:

    1. Maintaining the “Buffett premium”: Abel lacks Buffett’s cult-like following among investors, which may gradually erode the additional value the market assigns to Berkshire due to Buffett’s leadership.

      Without Buffett’s reputation, Abel may face increased pressure to effectively deploy Berkshire’s massive cash pile in a still-expensive stock market, where valuations are high and finding bargains is harder than ever.

    2. Technological adaptation: while Berkshire has increased its technology investments over the years (including positions in Apple and Amazon), balancing its legacy holdings (such as Coca-Cola and railroads) with growth sectors (AI, renewables) remains challenging.

    3. Environmental concerns: Berkshire Hathaway’s heavy reliance on coal and gas-fired utilities has drawn growing criticism as investors and regulators demand cleaner energy solutions.

    4. Replicating the “golden touch”: Buffett’s genius wasn’t just in picking stocks. It was also in capital allocation, deal-making, and crisis management (for example, buying into Goldman Sachs during the global financial crisis). Can Abel replicate that?

    After Buffett

    Buffett’s principles – patience, intrinsic value and betting on America – are timeless. But the world has moved on. His successor must navigate geopolitical risks, technological disruption, and the rise of passive investing while preserving Berkshire’s unique culture.

    The post-Buffett era represents more than just a leadership change. It’s a test of whether Buffett’s principles can survive in an increasingly short-term, technology-dominated, and geopolitically complex world.

    Abel’s leadership will reveal the enduring power – or limitations – of Buffett’s philosophy.

    Angel Zhong 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. As Warren Buffett prepares to retire, does his investing philosophy have a future? – https://theconversation.com/as-warren-buffett-prepares-to-retire-does-his-investing-philosophy-have-a-future-255867

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    May 7, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: NMCG Approves Key Projects for Ganga Rejuvenation via ecosystem restoration in 62nd Executive Committee Meeting

    Source: Government of India

    NMCG Approves Key Projects for Ganga Rejuvenation via ecosystem restoration in 62nd Executive Committee Meeting

    The meeting chaired by Shri Rajeev Kumar Mital, Director-General, NMCG, focuses on sustainability in river rejuvenation

    Namami Gange program has been recognised as one of the Top Ten, World Restoration Flagship initiatives by UN Decade (UNEP&FAO)

    Posted On: 06 MAY 2025 3:48PM by PIB Delhi

    In a significant push towards holistic river and environmental rejuvenation, the 62nd Executive Committee (EC) Meeting of the National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG), chaired by Shri Rajeev Kumar Mital, Director-General, NMCG, focused on sustainability in river rejuvenation. Conservation of critical wetlands and promoting the reuse of treated wastewater through city specific reuse plans and were deliberated in the meeting. The Committee approved projects that align with the mission’s objectives of ecosystem restoration across the Ganga basin. It may be noted that Namami Gange program has been recognised as one of the Top TEN, World Restoration Flagship initiatives by UN Decade (UNEP&FAO)

    In another important development, the EC gave the green light to the “Conserving and Sustainably Managing NathmalpurBhagad (Wetland) in Bhojpur District, Bihar” project, with an estimated cost of ₹3.51 crore. The project is the fifth wetland being undertaken under NGP. It aims to establish an effective management arrangement for NathmalpurBhagad. So far, under Namami Gange conservation of 4 wetlands have been already sanctioned at:

    1. KalewadaJheel, Muzaffarnagar, UP
    2. Namiya Dah Jheel,Prayagraj, UP
    3. Reoti Dah Wetland, Ballia, UP
    4. Udhwa Lake (Ramsar Site) Sahibganj, Jharkhand

    It focuses on integrating biodiversity and ecosystem service values into river basin conservation and developmental planning. The project proposes a dual approach with interventions at the sub-basin (Ghaghara, Gomti & Sone confluence) and site levels (NathmalpurBhagad), including activities such as wetland delineation, hydrological regime enhancement, species and habitat conservation, ecological assessment, risk evaluation, capacity building, communication and outreach, and monitoring mechanisms to ensure the long-term health and sustainability of the wetland ecosystem.

    Nathmalpur Wetland

     

    The EC also approved funding of ₹34.50 lakh for the “Capacity Building Initiatives for making water-sensitive cities in the Ganga Basin” project for the preparation of City Plans and training on the reuse of treated wastewater for Agra and Prayagraj Districts in Uttar Pradesh. The project aims at preparation of city level reuse plan aligned to the National Framework for Safe Reuse of Treated Water (SRTW) developed by NMCG.

     

    Nathmalpur Wetland

    These project approvals reaffirm NMCG’s commitment to integrated water management and environmental restoration. As the Mission continues to evolve, such strategic decisions will play a pivotal role in achieving the vision of a cleaner, healthier and more sustainable river ecosystem for future generations.

    The meeting was attended by Sh. Mahabir Prasad, Joint Secretary and Financial Advisor of Ministry of Power, (additional charge) River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Ministry of Jal Shakti; Sh. Nalin Srivastava, Deputy Director General of NMCG; Sh. Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Executive Director (Technical); Sh. Brijendra Swaroop, Executive Director (Projects) Sh. S.P. Vashistha, Executive Director (Administration); Sh. Bhaskar Dasgupta, Executive Director (Finance); Sh. Prabhash Kumar, Additional Project Director of Uttar Pradesh SMCG and Sh. S. Chandrasekhar, I.F.S., Chief Conservator of Forest -cum- State Nodal Officer, Environment & Climate Change, Bihar.

    ***

    Dhanya Sanal K

    (Release ID: 2127245) Visitor Counter : 46

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Minority Affairs Minister Shri Kiren Rijiju addresses opening ceremony of the United Nations Day of Vesak

    Source: Government of India

    Minority Affairs Minister Shri Kiren Rijiju addresses opening ceremony of the United Nations Day of Vesak

    Shri Rijiju underlines significance of presence of Holy Buddha Relics in Ho Chi Minh City coinciding with the UN Day of Vesak celebrations

    Shri Rijiju meets President of Vietnam, Mr. Luong Cuong

    Posted On: 06 MAY 2025 4:45PM by PIB Delhi

    Union Minister of Minority Affairs and Parliamentary Affairs Shri Kiren Rijiju addressed the opening ceremony of the United Nations Day of Vesak in Ho Chi Minh City today, which was also addressed by the President of Vietnam, Mr. Luong Cuong, President of Sri Lanka, Shri Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Sanghraja of Vietnam Buddhist Sangha, Thich Tri Quang and other leaders. Shri Rijiju conveyed warmest greetings and message on behalf of the Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi.  He noted that timeless teachings of Lord Buddha offer profound insights and solutions to most of the present global challenges.  He mentioned that India’s initiative of Mission LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment) to promote awareness about the impact of individual choices on our shared planet was deeply rooted in Buddhist philosophy. He also invited the followers of Lord Buddha to visit the sacred sites associated with teachings of Lord Buddha in India and connect with this living heritage. Shri Rijiju also underlined the significance of the presence of Holy Buddha Relics in Ho Chi Minh City coinciding with the United Nations Day of Vesak celebrations.

    Shri Rijiju separately met the President of Vietnam, Mr. Luong Cuong.  While recognizing the healthy progress in multi-dimensional cooperation between India and Vietnam, both leaders’ sides affirmed support for further strengthening the comprehensive strategic partnership between the two countries. Mr. Cuong appreciated Government of India’s sending of Holy Buddha Relics to Vietnam. The President of Vietnam accompanied by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs & Minority Affairs of India, the Minister of Ethnic and Religious Affairs of Vietnam, Politburo Member and Party Secretary of Ho Chi Minh City paid their respects to the Holy Buddha Relics brought from Sarnath near Kashi to the pagoda (temple) in Ho Chi Minh City.

    Shri Kiren Rijiju also visited an exhibition of Indian sculptures of Lord Buddha as well as digital restoration of Buddhist monuments in India on the sidelines of the United Nations Day of Vesak in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.  He also visited a comparative exhibition of Buddhist art and sculptures in India and Vietnam which brings out that over one and half millennia old Buddhist connections between the two countries extended beyond spirituality to the fields of art and culture.

    ***

    SS/ISA

    (Release ID: 2127261) Visitor Counter : 47

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – French EGalim law and HVE3 – E-001685/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-001685/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Wouter Beke (PPE)

    As of 1 January 2027, only the French environmental certification HVE3 (High Environmental Value level 3) will be accepted under the French EGalim law for the supply of agricultural products to the French market. Under EGalim, collective catering in France must use at least 50 % sustainable products, including 20 % organic. The HVE certification system (level 2 = CE2; level 3 = HVE3) defines what is considered sustainable. Non-French producers can participate in level 2 through equivalence procedures. Belgian exporters, for instance, can comply with EGalim via Vegaplan-FR certification, which is equivalent to CE2. However, from 2027 onwards, only HVE3 certification (or organic, Label Rouge, etc.) will be accepted, and it has no equivalency procedure. This means that non-French products can no longer be used for collective catering, which raises serious concerns about the principle of the European single market.

    • 1.Does the Commission consider this law to be in line with the principles of the European free movement of goods and the spirit of the European single market?
    • 2.Does the Commission plan to engage with the French authorities to discuss this law and to request that they develop an equivalence procedure for HVE3 for non-French farmers?

    Submitted: 28.4.2025

    Last updated: 6 May 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: REPORT on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions in 2023 – A10-0063/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

    on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions in 2023

    (2025/2027(INI))

    The European Parliament,

    – having regard to its previous resolutions on the outcome of the Committee on Petitions’ deliberations,

    – having regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

    – having regard to Articles 20, 24 and 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on the right of EU citizens and residents to bring their concerns to the attention of Parliament,

    – having regard to Article 228 TFEU on the role and functions of the European Ombudsman,

    – having regard to Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union concerning the right to petition the European Parliament,

    – having regard to the provisions of the TFEU relating to the infringement procedure and, in particular, to Articles 258 and 260 thereof,

    – having regard to Rules 55 and 233(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

    – having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions (A10-0063/2025),

    A. whereas the purpose of the annual report on the outcome of the Committee on Petitions’ deliberations is to present an analysis of the petitions received in 2023 and of relations with other institutions, as well as to present an accurate picture of the objectives achieved in 2023;

    B. whereas in 2023, Parliament received 1 452 petitions, which represents an increase of 16.2 % compared to the 1 217 petitions submitted in 2022 and of 4.0 % compared to the 1 392 petitions registered in 2021; whereas the total amount of petitions received continues to be significantly lower than the peak reached in 2013 and 2014, when Parliament received 2 891 and 2 715 petitions, respectively;

    C. whereas in 2023, the number of users supporting one or more petitions on Parliament’s Petitions Web Portal was 26 331, which represents a considerable increase compared to the 22 441 users recorded in 2022 (both numbers are considerably lower than the 209 272 supporters recorded in 2021); whereas the number of clicks in support of petitions also increased slightly in 2023, reaching a total of 29 287 (compared with 27 927 in 2022 and 217 876 in 2021);

    D. whereas however, the overall number of petitions remains modest in relation to the total population of the EU, revealing that efforts still need to be stepped up to increase citizens’ awareness of their right to petition and the possible usefulness of petitions as a means of drawing the attention of the institutions and the Member States to matters that affect and concern citizens directly; whereas in exercising the right to petition, citizens expect the EU institutions to provide added value in finding a solution to their problems;

    E. whereas the criteria for the admissibility of petitions are laid down in Article 227 TFEU and Rule 232(1) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, which require that petitions must be submitted by an EU citizen or by a natural or legal person who is resident or has a registered office in a Member State and is directly affected by matters falling within the EU’s fields of activity;

    F. whereas of the 1 452 petitions submitted in 2023, 429 were declared inadmissible and 13 were withdrawn; whereas the high percentage (29.55 %) of inadmissible petitions in 2023 confirms that there is still a widespread lack of clarity about the scope of the EU’s areas of responsibility; whereas in order to reduce the number of inadmissible petitions, efforts still need to be made to clarify further the scope of the EU’s fields of activity;

    G. whereas the right to petition Parliament is a fundamental right of EU citizens, offering both citizens and residents an open, democratic and transparent mechanism to address their elected representatives directly; whereas this essential tool empowers citizens to actively and effectively participate in the life of the Union; whereas through petitions, EU citizens can complain about failures to implement EU law and help detect breaches of EU law;

    H. whereas Parliament is the only EU institution directly elected by EU citizens; whereas the right to petition the European Parliament is one of the fundamental rights of EU citizens and residents and it allows them to address their elected representatives directly; whereas Parliament has long been at the forefront of the development of the petitions process internationally and has the most open, democratic and transparent petitions process in Europe, allowing petitioners to participate actively and effectively in its activities, whereas in exercising the right to petitions, citizens expect the EU institutions provide added value, cooperating with the Commission and Member State authorities, in solving their problems;

    I. whereas the information submitted by petitioners in their petitions and during committee meetings, along with the Commission’s assessments and the replies from the Member States and other bodies, also provide valuable input for the work of other parliamentary committees, given that admissible petitions are forwarded to the relevant committee for an opinion or for information; whereas, therefore, petitions can also play a role in the legislative process, providing concrete feedback on the impact of EU policies and enabling policies to address emerging needs;

    J. whereas the activities of the Committee on Petitions are based on the input provided by petitioners, enabling Parliament to enhance its responsiveness to complaints and concerns relating to respect for fundamental EU rights and compliance with EU legislation in the Member States; whereas petitions are therefore a useful source of information on instances of misapplication or breaches of EU law, enabling an assessment of the application of EU law and its impact on the rights of EU citizens and residents; whereas in 2023 fundamental rights were one of the three most important concerns of all petitioners; whereas, in the context of the structured dialogue with the Commission, the Committee on Petitions called on the Commission to fight discrimination in the European Union, including through initiatives to guarantee equal rights and to strengthen measures against all forms of discrimination, including those based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, disability, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation;

    K. whereas according to Article 17 TEU the Commission should ensure the correct application of the Treaties and of measures adopted pursuant to them; whereas the Commission’s strategic approach to addressing issues raised in petitions must be fully consistent with the Treaties in order to ensure the most effective follow-up of petitions, aiming at guaranteeing full and timely protection of citizens’ rights arising from EU law;

    L. whereas each petition must be considered and examined carefully, efficiently, impartially, fairly and transparently, in line with the standards set in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the Right to good administration; whereas all petitioners have the right to receive a reply informing them about the decision on admissibility and follow-up actions taken by the committee within a reasonable period of time, in their own language or in the language used in the petition; whereas timely and effective responses by the Commission and Member States to the issues raised in the petitions, along with solutions for redress, where appropriate, contribute to strengthening the trust citizens place in the Union and its policies;

    M. whereas the Committee on Petitions attaches the utmost importance to the examination and public discussion of petitions at its meetings; whereas petitioners have the right to present their petitions and frequently take the floor in the discussion, thereby actively contributing to the work of the committee; whereas in 2023, the Committee on Petitions held 10 committee meetings, at which 191 petitions were discussed with 114 petitioners present and actively participating by taking the floor;

    N. whereas the main subjects of concern raised in petitions submitted in 2023 related to the environment, fundamental rights, personal matters and justice;

    O.  whereas when adopting its meeting agenda, the Committee on Petitions pays attention to petitions and topics with a high degree of relevance for discussion at EU level and to the need to maintain a balanced geographical coverage of topics according to the petitions received;

    P. whereas 82.4 % of the petitions received in 2023 were submitted via Parliament’s Petitions Web Portal, which is a slight increase compared to 2022 (79.05 %), thus reconfirming it as by far the most used channel for citizens to submit petitions to Parliament;

    Q. whereas in February 2023, the Petitions Web Portal was revamped and relaunched to align it with current expectations and make it easier for residents of the Member States to exercise their right to submit petitions to Parliament; whereas the updated Petitions Portal 2.0 integrated seamlessly with Parliament’s web publishing tool, enabling faster and simpler content updates and new features (including seven ‘Quick Start Guides’ that provide clear, step-by-step instructions for submitting, tracking and supporting petitions); whereas a new search engine powered by elastic search technology enhanced the user experience by delivering more accurate results efficiently leading to the new portal’s prioritising a truly citizen-centred approach; whereas during 2023 all petitions were prepared and published in a timely manner, within a few days of their adoption, and all internal and external requests for support on the use and content of the Petitions Portal were replied to successfully, in a timely manner and in all languages;

    R. Whereas in 2023, the Committee on Petitions (PETI) held four fact-finding visits, during which Members travelled to Romania to examine the management and the protection of the brown bear population and illegal logging, to Donegal (Ireland) to investigate the use of defective mica blocks in construction in Ireland and to Catalonia (Spain) to assess in situ the language immersion model in Catalonia; whereas PETI members were also part of a joint delegation from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and PETI that travelled to New York to attend the 16th session of the Conference of States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD COSP);

    S. whereas under Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the Committee on Petitions is also responsible for relations with the European Ombudsman, who investigates complaints about maladministration within the institutions and bodies of the EU; whereas the previous European Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, presented her annual report for 2022 to the Committee on Petitions at its meeting of 27 June 2023;

    T. whereas the Committee on Petitions is a member of the European Network of Ombudsmen, which also includes the European Ombudsman, national and regional ombudsmen and similar bodies in the Member States, the candidate countries and other European Economic Area countries, and which aims to promote the exchange of information about EU law and policy, and to share best practice;

    1. Emphasises Committee on Petition’s fundamental role in protecting and promoting the rights of EU citizens and residents by ensuring that petitioners’ concerns and complaints are examined in a timely, effective and appropriate manner and that petitioners are informed about the actions taken and progress made on their petitions; recalls that all petitions are treated through an open, democratic and transparent petition process;

    2. Welcomes the successful contribution the Committee on Petitions made to dealing with the case of the repatriation of children, together with their mothers, who were detained for years in dire conditions in Syrian refugee camps and suffering from serious illness, malnutrition, severe psychological pressure and whose health conditions were worsening day by day; appreciates that the main legal arguments supported unanimously in PETI were substantially backed by the Danish Supreme Court in its order to offer repatriation and support by the Danish foreign ministry to both the children concerned and their mothers;

    3. Reiterates the importance of a continuous public debate on the EU’s fields of activity in order to ensure that citizens are properly informed about the scope of the Union’s competences and the different levels of decision-making; calls for an EU-wide enhanced structured information and communication campaign in all EU official languages in collaboration with national and regional ombudsmen, NGOs, and educational institutions to increase awareness of petition rights among citizens from all Member States, particularly addressing rural and disadvantaged communities and marginalised groups, as well as, remote islands and regions; proposes an expansion of outreach efforts through social media and local community events, emphasises the need for broader awareness-raising campaigns, through the active involvement of communications services, to help increase citizens’ knowledge about their right to petition, as well as the scope of the EU’s responsibilities and the competences of the Committee on Petitions, with a view to reducing the number of inadmissible petitions and enhancing citizen engagement in the decision-making process; recommends improving the digital accessibility of the Petitions Portal, including through adaptations for people with disabilities and higher quality translations into all official EU languages; recommends exploring the potential of the existing IT tools in order to increase citizens’ support on the portal, including through redirecting options to relevant complaint mechanisms;

    4. Recalls the European dimension of the Committee on Petitions, which can be addressed by citizens from all 27 Member States on issues that fall within the scope of the EU Treaties and EU law; believes that the Committee has a special responsibility to uphold this European dimension and to demonstrate the added value of European unity and integration to citizens;

    5. Points out that petitions constitute a unique opportunity for Parliament and the other EU institutions to directly connect with EU citizens and maintain a regular dialogue with them, particularly in cases where they are affected by the misapplication or breach of EU law; stresses the need for enhanced cooperation between the EU institutions and national, regional and local authorities on inquiries regarding the implementation of, and compliance with, EU law; believes that such cooperation is crucial to address and resolve citizens’ concerns over the application of EU law and that it contributes to strengthening the democratic legitimacy and accountability of the Union; calls, therefore, for the participation of Member States’ representatives in committee meetings and for timely and detailed responses to requests for clarification or information sent by the Committee on Petitions to national authorities;

    6. Recalls that petitions contribute considerably to the exercise of the Commission’s role as the guardian of the Treaties by providing citizens with an additional tool to report alleged breaches of EU law; stresses that constructive cooperation between the Committee on Petitions and the Commission through timely and detailed answers from the Commission, which are based on thorough examinations of the issues raised in petitions, is essential to ensure the successful treatment of petitions;

    7. Reiterates its call on the Commission to provide legal clarifications on the key criteria underpinning its strategic approach to enforcing EU law and to regularly update the Committee on Petitions on developments in infringement proceedings and to ensure that the Committee on Petitions gets access to the all relevant documents on EU Pilot and infringement procedures and legislative initiatives that were launched based on petitions received; is of the opinion that increased transparency and regular feedback on the handling of ongoing infringement procedures by the Commission would be beneficial for the Committee’s follow-up of open petitions; welcomes the recent Commission initiative to include petitions in the search system of the infringement register of the Commission; stresses that it is important for the Commission to conduct timely investigations into petitions, highlighting violations of rights affecting a large number of citizens and residents within the EU and to consult, where appropriate, the relevant national ombudsman; expresses its concerns about the way the Commission is handling some infringement procedures launched against Member States, including those related to issues raised in many petitions; encourages the Commission to put in place all necessary measures to improve transparency and effectiveness of its management of infringement procedures, which can be perceived as opaque by citizens;

    8. Calls on the Commission to assess whether the national authorities are taking the necessary measures to respond to citizens’ concerns, as expressed in their petitions, where cases of failure to comply with EU law occur, and to launch infringement procedures where necessary; emphasises that timely and proactive action by the Commission in cases of breaches of EU law is crucial to prevent such breaches, which could undermine citizens’ trust in European institutions, becoming systemic in nature;

    9. Emphasises the need for enhanced and more active cooperation between Member States and the Committee on petitions in order to unblock those petitions requiring prompt responses and reactions from the national authorities; recalls that the delayed responses of the Member States could have an impact on the timely resolution of issues raised by citizens and negative consequences for the solution of breaches of Union law; notes that the Member States should guarantee responses to petitions within the three-month deadline requested; stresses that improved coordination and dialogue would facilitate a more efficient handling of citizens’ concerns, prevent unnecessary delays and strengthen the effectiveness of the petition process;

    10. Strongly condemns the harassment and intimidation to which the official members of the Delegation of the Committee on Petitions were subjected during their fact-finding visit to Barcelona from 18 to 20 December 2023, with the aim of assessing in situ the language immersion model in Catalonia, its effects on families moving to and residing in the Autonomous Community, as well as on multilingualism and non-discrimination and the principle of the rule of law;

    11. Condemns the attempted ‘escraches’ (public shaming through doorstep demonstrations), violence and intimidation by separatist entities and groups in Catalonia that were intended to prevent the smooth running of the mission and with which they sought to coerce MEPs so that the outcome of the mission would favour their interests;

    12. Regrets that the competent education authorities in the region have not implemented the recommendations issued by the Committee on Petitions in its report of 19 March 2024 following the mission, aimed at protecting the linguistic rights of students and their families;

    13. Recalls that the e-Petition database is an essential internal tool that allows the members of the Committee on Petitions to access all necessary information in order to follow up on the state of play of each petition and to be able to make informed decisions on the treatment of the petitions; notes that the e-Petition database also plays an important role in communication with petitioners;

    14. Recalls the Commission’s commitment to create an interinstitutional IT tool, together with Parliament, with which to share information and documents on all follow-up actions taken on petitions, such as infringement procedures, legislative proposals or replies by national authorities, thus enhancing the transparency and efficiency of the treatment of petitions, which, in a wider context, would contribute to increasing citizens’ trust in the EU institutions and the European project;

    15. Recalls that cooperation with other committees in Parliament is essential for the comprehensive treatment of petitions; notes that in 2023, 34 requests for opinion (corresponding to 31 petitions) and 223 requests for information were sent to other committees; notes that of the 34 opinions requested, only 25 answers were received by the end of 2023 (in 14 cases an opinion was provided, while in 10 cases the committee decided not to draft an opinion and on four occasions no official decision has been communicated); recalls that petitioners are informed of decisions to request opinions from other committees for the treatment of their petitions; underlines that parliamentary committees should step up their efforts to actively contribute to the examination of petitions by providing their expertise so as to enable Parliament to respond more swiftly and comprehensively to citizens’ concerns;

    16. Believes that the petitions network is a useful tool for facilitating the follow-up of petitions in parliamentary and legislative work; trusts that regular meetings of the petitions network are crucial in order to ensure more visibility for the Committee on Petition’s activities and a better understanding of its work and mission, as well as to strengthen cooperation with the other parliamentary committees;

    17. Underlines that the Committee on Petitions expressed its position on important issues raised in petitions by adopting its report on the outcome of the Committee on Petitions’ deliberations during 2022[1];

    18. Highlights a slight decrease in the number of petitions submitted on external relations issues compared to 2022; notes that this could be explained by the new geopolitical context in 2023 and in particular a decrease in the number of petitions on the war in Ukraine and a significant increase in petitions dealing with the new conflicts in the Middle East; notes that the Committee on Petitions took account of citizens’ concerns about sanctions, security, conflict resolution, visa policy, progress of EU candidate countries, among other issues, putting on its agenda a number of petitions dealing in particular with questions related to the situation of refugees, in particular of children and on the situation of Venezuelan refugees in the EU; acknowledges the efforts of the committees already actively addressing these issues and emphasises that the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs should take note of these petitions in their deliberations;

    19. Takes note that health, which was one of the main areas of concern for petitioners in 2022, appeared to continue to play an important role in 2023; notes, in particular, that the Committee on Petitions examined and discussed petitions on the ban on chemicals and heavy metals in children’s toys, on support for healthy and environmentally friendly food systems and lifestyles and on the implementation of EU regulations on added sugars in foods intended for infants and young children;

    20. Draws attention to the significant number of petitions submitted and discussed in relation to citizens’ concerns over the reintroduction of border checks between some Member States raising the problematic aspect of limitation of the free movement of persons within the EU and other aspects such as the strengths and the weaknesses of the extension of the Schengen area, as well as the costs of not belonging to the Schengen area; appreciates the significant role played by the Committee on Petitions, in particular the host of activities carried out, the adoption in committee of a short motion for a resolution on the accession to the Schengen area on 27 June 2023 and the related Parliament resolution, to strongly support the enlargement of the Schengen area to include Romania and Bulgaria the organisation of the public hearing on Schengen Borders on 18 July 2023 in association with the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; welcomes the unanimous decision by the Council for the full membership of both countries of the Schengen area as of 1 January 2025 allowing the full exercise of the fundamental freedoms of the EU Single Market; 

    21. Takes note of the sudden increase in petitions of Spanish origin in the second half of 2023 concerning the risks to the rule of law in Spain as a result of the Spanish Government’s intention to adopt an Amnesty Law contrary to constitutional and European law;

    22. Underlines the work of the Committee on Petitions in connection with petitions relating to common rules on a single standard for hand luggage dimensions, highlighting citizens’ concerns about the inconvenience and discomfort caused by inconsistent rules on airline carry-on luggage and the resulting hidden costs; emphasises its call for compliance with a relevant European Court of Justice ruling in the context of the revision of EU air services legislation; points, in this regard, to the short motion for a resolution on standardised dimensions for carry-on luggage adopted by the Committee on Petitions on 20 September 2023 followed by the adoption of a resolution by single vote of the European Parliament on 4 October 2023; welcomes the fact that in November 2023 the Commission put forward a review of the passenger rights framework and a series of proposals designed to improve the experience of passengers and travellers, including the requirement of a limited number of common sizes and weights to reduce the confusion; notes with regret that passengers with disabilities are still facing too many barriers while travelling, especially in case of multimodal journeys; regrets that the public transport systems of many Member States do not comply with the requirements of United Nations Convention on the Rights for Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD);

    23. Notes that environmental issues remained an area of serious concern for petitioners in 2023 with more than 21 % of petitions dedicated to environmental issues; regrets that some of these petitions allege incorrect implementation of EU legislation by the Member States, with some Member States already facing infringement procedures for the breach of EU environmental laws; notes that numerous petitions describe complaints about air quality, noise pollution, waste management/treatment, the deterioration of natural ecosystems and violation of the Habitats Directive in different Member States; highlights the public hearing on the state of implementation of the Habitats Directive organised on 24 May 2023; notes the work the Committee on Petitions continued to carry out in 2023 on the impact of climate change in different fields, not only in the environmental area, but also in the use of land, putting a number of petitions received on these topics on the agenda; points to the workshop on the impact of climate change on social security and the most vulnerable groups organised on 22 March 2023 and also to the presentation of the study on compensation for victims of climate change disasters on 18 July 2023;

    24. Draws attention to the workshop organised by the Committee on Petitions on 25 January 2023 on transparency of pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products, which discussed transparency from the perspectives of patients and consumers, producers of medicinal products, and academic research; notes that the discussions focused on research and development costs of companies and information available on the prices paid for medicines, underlining the importance of transparency on these issues;

    25. Stresses the importance of delivering on EU citizens’ expectations regarding the protection of the environment and urges the Commission, together with the Member States, to ensure the correct implementation of EU legislation in the environmental field, in particular in the field of illegal logging; points to the petitions on environmental issues, which reflect a growing public concern about the implications of climate change, requiring consistent enforcement of the existing EU environmental legislation by both the Commission and the Member States;

    26. Acknowledges the positive effects of the fact-finding visit to Romania from 15 to 18 May 2023 on the management and protection of the brown bear population; notes with regret, however, that there are still too many fatal accidents caused by brown bears in connection with humans and livestock, making further monitoring and cooperation with the national authorities necessary;

    27. Following the fact-finding visit to Romania, stresses the need for a balance between wildlife protection and the citizens’ safety; underlines that each Member State should be allowed to take measures, including population control of the species, in order to prevent threats to the lives and property of its citizens;

    28. Stresses the commitment of the Committee on Petitions to protect the rights of persons with disabilities; recalls the annual workshop of held by the Committee on Petitions on 29 November 2023 on the rights of persons with disabilities; recalls that its first part focused on how persons with disabilities dealt with the recent crises (energy costs, war, high inflation, etc.) and how EU measures helped to overcome these obstacles while the second part addressed the issue of how the European institutions have built inclusive communication with citizens with disabilities; also highlights, in this context, the adoption by the Committee of an opinion in the form of a letter on establishing the European Disability Card and the European Parking Card for persons with disabilities on 29 November 2023; reiterates that the Commission should address the cases where the national authorities refuse to recognise the rights for social security benefits for person with disabilities, thus leaving them without the necessary means to cover their basic needs; underlines as well in this context the imperative need for a full and consistent transposition of the European Accessibility Act and calls on the Member States to avoid further delays that hinder the rights of persons with disabilities; recalls that the Accessibility Act aims at improving the life of at least 87 million persons with disabilities, facilitating their access to, inter alia, public transport, banking services, computers, TVs, e-books and online shops;

    29. Stresses the important contribution made by the Committee on Petitions to the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities, as revealed by its treatment of a number of petitions on this sensitive topic; acknowledges, in this context, the efforts of Parliament’s services and notes that not just the best technical but the most accessible solution for deaf citizens must be found in order to communicate with them in their own mother tongue, in national sign languages; requests the modification of the Rules of Procedures in close cooperation with the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) committee in order to eliminate the written communication with deaf citizens; also highlights, in this context, the adoption by the Committee of an opinion in the form of a letter on establishing the European Disability Card and the European Parking Card for persons with disabilities on 29 November 2023;

    30. Underlines, furthermore, the specific protection role played by the Committee on Petitions within the EU in the framework of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities through its capacity to hear petitions and highlights the committee’s important ongoing work on petitions concerning disability-related issues; while noting a slight decrease in the number of petitions on disability in 2023 compared to 2022, stresses that the number nearly doubled compared to 2021; further points out that discrimination and access to public transport and employment, continue to be major challenges faced by persons with disabilities and emphasises the Committee’s special attention to the request for the European Disability Statute to recognise the rights of people with autism; welcomes the adoption of a short motion for a resolution on harmonising the rights of autistic people, emphasising the need to improve access to diagnosis, healthcare, education, employment, accessibility and provision of reasonable accommodation, legal capacity and lifelong community support including as regards culture and sport; draws attention, furthermore, to the particular role of the Committee on Petitions in safeguarding the rights of children and their parents, acknowledging numerous petitions received on children’s rights, which require special attention and action; recalls, in this context the provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular the Article 24 thereof on the rights of the child, to allow every child to maintain a personal relationship and direct contact with both of his/her parents, unless that is contrary to the child’s interests; reiterates as well the risk that families with autistic children are being targeted by offers of unproven, potentially harmful and illegal therapies and interventions which may amount to serious physical abuse of children;

    31. Recalls the fact that relations with the European Ombudsman represent one of the responsibilities conferred on the Committee on Petitions by Parliament’s Rules of Procedure; welcomes Parliament’s constructive cooperation with the European Ombudsman, with whom the Committee on Petitions shares the objectives of ensuring the transparency, professionalism and integrity of the EU institutions vis-à-vis European citizens, as well as its involvement in the European Network of Ombudsmen;

    32. Underlines the key work performed by the Committee on Petitions on the protection of workers’ rights; underlines that several petitions received in this area were followed up by further actions such as the debate on the use of fixed-term contracts, as well as that on the European citizens’ initiative-turned petition ‘Good Clothes, Fair Pay’ focusing on the harmful situation of workers in the global garment and footwear industry, or the Parliamentary Question for Oral Answer on the Working conditions of teachers in the European Union, also having as its basis a petition received on this subject; reiterates the importance of ensuring fair working conditions and greater protection of workers in the EU, calling on the Member States and the Commission to effectively address concerns raised in petitions related to labour rights and trade unions; 

    33. Recalls the European Parliament study on Homelessness in the EU which was commissioned by the Committee on Petitions and presented at its meeting in November 2023; notes that this study made an important contribution on this pressing social and economic challenge, which represents one of the most severe forms of societal exclusion, highlighting the need for a public policy change towards preventing homelessness in the first place, inter alia by providing secure and affordable housing;

    34. Acknowledges the European Ombudsman’s regular contributions to the work of the Committee on Petitions throughout the year; firmly believes that the Union’s institutions, bodies and agencies must ensure consistent and effective follow-up to the recommendations of the Ombudsman;

    35. Stresses that European citizens’ initiatives (ECIs) represent an important instrument for active citizenship and public participation; welcomes the discussion in some meetings of unsuccessful ECIs, which were sometimes subsequently reformulated as petitions, giving citizens the opportunity to present their ideas and hold a constructive debate, while contributing to their participation in the EU’s democratic processes; takes note of the significant number of new ECIs registered by the Commission in 2023, which shows that citizens are seizing the opportunity to use participatory instruments to have a say in policy and lawmaking processes; calls on the Commission to better engage with citizens and give adequate follow-up to successful ECIs; welcomes the important effort put in place to organise, in association with other committees, four public hearings on successful ECIs, which allowed the organisers to present the initiative’s objectives and engage with Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the European Commission; underlines that the Commission’s commitment to responding to valid ECIs is essential to maintaining citizens’ trust in the ECI as the most significant instrument of participatory democracy;

    36. Urges the Commission to give due consideration to the parliamentary resolutions adopted on European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECIs) and to enhance its engagement with citizens, particularly by ensuring appropriate and effective follow-up to successful ECIs, thereby reinforcing the democratic process and ensuring that citizens’ voices are adequately reflected in EU policymaking;

    37. Underlines that the Petitions Web Portal is an essential tool for ensuring a smooth, efficient and transparent petitions process; welcomes, in this regard, the improvements to data protection and security features that have made the portal more user-friendly and secure for citizens; stresses that efforts to make the portal more accessible must be continued, including making it more accessible for sign-language users and persons with disabilities; notes that the Petitions Web Portal has been one of the European Parliament’s most visited websites, thus serving as a first point of contact with Parliament for many EU citizens;

    38. Recalls the European dimension of the Committee on Petitions, which can be addressed by citizens from all 27 Member States on issues that fall within the scope of the Union’s activities; believes that the Committee has a special responsibility to uphold this European dimension and to demonstrate the added value of European unity and integration to citizens and continue addressing issues related to violations of EU law, as well as loopholes and shortcomings in the provisions of existing EU law; believes that timely avoidance of petitions with clear national competences along with comprehensive explanations and instructions about alternative courses of action, where appropriate, could contribute to a constructive approach and an enhanced citizens engagement considers, in this context, that the European Parliament should increase its efforts to promote the role and work of its Committee on Petitions and raise awareness among all EU citizens of the possibility to address a petition to the European Parliament; recalls that due to the limited time allotted to committee meetings, most petitions are treated through written procedure; recalls, in this context, that all petitions received, including those in the area of international affairs, should be handled with the necessary transparency and impartiality; is of the opinion that the selection of petitions for discussion in committee should reflect a geographical and political balance of submissions received; believes, moreover, that geographical balance should also be sought when organising the committee’s fact-finding visits, yearly and over the course of each legislative term;

    39. Welcomes the adoption of the short motion for a resolution on the creation of a European Capital of Local Trade[2] at the plenary session of January 2023; underlines that this achievement is an excellent result for the Committee on Petitions, noting that this project has been successfully included as a preparatory action in the 2024 budget, with a total budget of EUR 3 million; recalls that the project to create a European Capital of Small Retail (ECSR) was officially presented by the Commission in Barcelona in December 2023;

    40. Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the report of the Committee on Petitions to the Council, the Commission, the European Ombudsman, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, their petitions committees and their national ombudsmen or similar competent bodies.

     

    EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

    Pursuant to Rule 233(7) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, the Committee on Petitions shall report annually on the outcome of its deliberations. The report aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the work carried out by the committee in 2023 and includes a statistical analysis of the petitions received and processed as well as a stocktaking of other parliamentary activities such as the adoption of reports and opinions, the organisation of hearings and the committee’s relations with other EU institutions. It is worth recalling that the core work of the Committee on Petitions generates from the right to petition the European Parliament exercised by EU citizens and residents under Article 227 TFEU and is not directly linked to the work programme of the Commission.

     

    In 2023, following the decision taken in 2022, all the measures put in place in the European Parliament in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic aiming at ensuring Parliament’s core functions were confirmed. All committee meetings in 2023 took place in Parliament’s premises, with the participation of MEPs, as well as of Commission’s representatives, in person. Petitioners have had the possibility to participate remotely or in person.

     

    Statistical analysis of petitions received in 2023 compared to 2022

     

    According to the statistics, the European Parliament received 1 452 petitions in 2023, which represents an increase by 16.0 % compared to the 1217 petitions submitted in 2022 and by 4.0 % compared to the 1392 petitions registered in 2021. The number of petitions on COVID-19 has significantly decreased compared to the two previous years: 12 petitions on 2023 compared to 45 petitions in 2022 and 242 petitions in 2021.

     

    Users of the Petitions Web Portal have the possibility to support petitions. In 2023, 26331 users acted as supporters as compared to 2022, 22441 and 209272 in 2021. It follows, that in 2023 the number of users supporting petitions in the web portal slightly increased in comparison with the previous year. The number of supports increased in 2023, reaching 29287 compared to 27927 in 2022 but incomparably lower compared to the 217876 in 2021;

     

    In 2023, 11 petitions were co-signed by more than one citizen. Of the 11 petitions signed by more than one citizen, only 1 was signed by more than 100 citizens; of those 11 petitions, only 1 was signed by more than 500 citizens and none by more than 5000 citizens;

     

    Format of petitions

    In 2023, 82.4 % of petitions were submitted via the Petitions Web Portal, while almost 17.6 % of petitions were submitted by post. The figures in the two tables reveal that in 2023 the proportion of petitions submitted via the Petitions Web Portal slightly increased in comparison with 2022, the Petitions Web Portal remaining by far the most used channel for submitting citizens’ petitions to the European Parliament.

     

     

     

     

    2023

     

     

     

    2022

    Petition Format

    Number of petitions

    %

    Petition format

    Number of petitions

    %

     

     

    Petition Portal

     

    1186

    82.4

    Petitions Portal

    962

    79.05

    Letter

     

    254

    17.6

    Letter

    255

    20.95

    The following table shows the status of petitions from 2003 to 2023. It can be noted that in 2023, a very large majority (⅔) of petitions were closed within a year after being received and examined by the committee. As a result of the comparison with the data on the status of petitions included in the annual reports from 2010 to 2022, it can be concluded that a significantly majority of petitions are closed within a year after being received and examined. Except for the year 2023 and partially for year 2016, less than 11% of the petitions received each year since 2003 and very small percentages (from 0.2% to 1.5%) of petitions from 2004 to 2014 remain open. Most of these open petitions relate to environmental issues and ongoing infringement proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union or to issues that members of the committee want to follow closely. An important number of petitions on the beach concessions in Italy (in total 450) have been submitted from 2012 to 2023, with a high number in 2016 and 2023 and are still open with a relevant impact on the statistics.

    Status of petitions

     

    Year

     

    Number of petitions

     

    Open petitions

     

     

    Closed petitions

    2023

    1 452

    334

    23.2%

    1 106

    76.8%

    2022

    1 210

    142

    11.7%

    1 068

    88.3%

    2021

    1 388

    154

    11.1%

    1 234

    88.9%

    2020

    1 570

    141

    9.0%

    1 429

    91.0%

    2019

    1 355

    113

    8.3%

    1 242

    91.7%

    2018

    1 219

    110

    9.0%

    1 109

    91.0%

    2017

    1 270

    57

    4.5%

    1 213

    95.5%

    2016

    1 568

    249

    15.9%

    1 319

    84.1%

    2015

    1 431

    64

    4.5%

    1 367

    95.5%

    2014

    2 715

    38

    1.4%

    2 677

    98.6%

    2013

    2 891

    33

    1.1%

    2 858

    98.9%

    2012

    1 986

    26

    1.3%

    1 960

    98.7%

    2011

    1 414

    14

    1.0%

    1 400

    99.0%

    2010

    1 656

    14

    0.8%

    1 642

    99.2%

    2009

    1 924

    5

    0.3%

    1 919

    99.7%

    2008

    1 886

    12

    0.6%

    1 874

    99.4%

    2007

    1 506

    15

    1.0%

    1 491

    99.0%

    2006

    1 021

    2

    0.2%

    1 019

    99.8%

    2005

    1 016

    2

    0.2%

    1 014

    99.8%

    2004

    1 002

    2

    0.2%

    1 000

    99.8%

    2003

    1 315

    0

    0.0%

    1 315

    100.0%

     

    Outcome of petitions[3]

     

    2023

     

     

     

    2022

    Outcome of petitions

    Number

    %

    Outcome of petitions

    Number

    %

     

     

    Admissible and Closed

    677

    46.65

    Admissible and Closed

    527

    43.48

    Admissible and Open

    334

    23.00

    Admissible and Open

    327

    26.98

    Inadmissible

    429

    29.55

    Inadmissible

    357

    29.46

    Withdrawn

    13

    0.8

    Withdrawn

    5

    0.08

    Sent to EC for opinion

    572

    55.21

    Sent to EC for opinion

    482

    37.57

    Sent for opinion to other bodies

    12

    1.16

    Sent for opinion to other bodies

    12

    0.94

    Sent for information to other bodies

    452

    43.63

    Sent for information to other bodies

    789

    61.5

     

    The tables show that the petitions declared inadmissible in 2023 vs 2022 is significantly higher in terms of number but as percentage, the petitions declared inadmissible in 2023 remained stable as compared to 2022.

    The percentage of admissible petitions (46.65%), which were closed immediately by providing information to the petitioner in 2023, is slightly higher as compared to 2022. The percentage of petitions that have been kept open in 2023 (23.00%) have slightly decreased compared to 2022 (26.98%).

    It is also to be noted that in 2023, more than the half (55.21 %) of the admissible petitions were sent to the Commission for opinion.

    Finally, the percentage of petitions sent to other bodies for opinion remained the same in 2023 as compared to 2022.

    Number of petitions by country

    The following two tables illustrate in numbers and in percentage terms changes of petitions by country from 2022 to 2023. A large number of petitions submitted in both years concern the EU. It means that these petitions either raise EU-wide issues or call for common measures to be implemented throughout the EU. Petitions concerning the EU may also relate to one or more Member States and are therefore registered under both the EU and the concerned Member State(s). This explains why the sum of the petitions concerning the EU and of those only related to Member States exceeds the total number of petitions submitted in 2022 and 2023.

    Additionally, it is worth stressing that the six countries mostly concerned by petitions remained the same in both years although the order of the most concerned countries has changed in 2023 compared to 2022, (Italy in 2023 takes the second seat occupied by Germany in 2022 and Greece takes the sixth seat in 2023 occupied by Poland in 2022). The majority of petitions submitted in 2023 concern Spain, with a relevant increase in terms of numbers in comparison with 2022. It is interesting to note the very significant increase in the number of petitions concerning Italy (from 101 to 202) and Portugal (from 17 to 38), and an opposite flow of the number of petitions related to Greece, with a decrease from 71 to 53. A relevant aspect to underline is that the number of petitions related to France, increased (from 39 to 53) in comparison with 2022.

    By contrast, petitions concerning non-EU countries decreased significantly in 2023 compared to petitions submitted in 2022 (from 226 to 176).

    As regards the countries featuring at the bottom of the list, Slovakia, Cyprus and Luxembourg, are the least concerned countries in 2023, while in 2022 it was the case for Czechia, Estonia and Slovakia.

     

     

    2023

     

     

     

     

    2022

     

    Concerned Country

    Petitions

    %

     

    Concerned Country

    Petitions

    %

    European Union

    660

    45.8

     

    European Union

    566

    46.7

    Spain

    267

    18.5

     

    Spain

    199

    16.4

    Italy

    202

    14.0

     

    Germany

    139

    11.5

    Germany

    120

    8.3

     

    Italy

    101

    8.3

    Romania

    65

    4.5

     

    Greece

    71

    5.9

    France

    53

    3.7

     

    Romania

    59

    4.9

    Greece

    53

    3.7

     

    Poland

    54

    4.5

    Poland

    53

    3.7

     

    France

    39

    3.2

    Portugal

    38

    2.6

     

    Hungary

    20

    1.7

    Hungary

    24

    1.7

     

    Ireland

    19

    1.6

    Other EU countries

    193

    13.3

     

    Other EU countries

    143

    11.9

    Non-EU countries

    176

    12.2

     

    Non-EU countries

    226

    18.6

     

    Languages of petitions

    In 2023 and in 2022, petitions were submitted in 22 of the official languages of the European Union. English and Spanish were the most used languages in both 2022 and 2023, with Spanish re-confirmed as the second most used language, after English. Italian gained a position and became the third most used language in 2023, to the detriment of German which is the fourth in 2023. The tables illustrate that English continued to account for more than ¼ of the total of petitions submitted and that English, Spanish, Italian and German languages account for more than ¾ of the petitions received in 2023 and 2022 (77.5% and 76.2% respectively). Slovak, Estonian and Croatian were the least used languages in 2023 while in 2022 it was the case of Slovenian, Czech and Croatian.

     

     

     

     

    2023

     

     

     

    2022

     

    Petition Language

    Number of petitions

    %

     

    Petition Language

    Number of petitions

    %

    English

    382

    26.5

     

    English

    325

    26.7

    Spanish

    301

    20.9

     

    Spanish

    251

    20.6

    Italian

    224

    15.6

     

    German

    215

    17.6

    German

    209

    14.5

     

    Italian

    138

    11.3

    French

    74

    5.1

     

    French

    58

    4.8

    Polish

    49

    3.4

     

    Polish

    56

    4.6

    Greek

    47

    3.3

     

    Greek

    43

    3.5

    Romanian

    44

    3.1

     

    Romanian

    42

    3.5

    Others

    110

    7.6

     

    Others

    89

    7.3

    Total

    1440

    100

     

    Total

    1217

    100

     

    Nationality of petitioners

    As regards nationality, while petitions submitted by Spanish citizens represented the highest number in 2023 confirming not only the first place of the 2022 but also registering an important increase (from 266 to 330), Italian citizens exceeded German petitioners and became the second nationality in submitting petitions in 2023 with a significant increase (from 159 to 254).

     

    In addition, the tables below show a slight rise in the number of petitions submitted by Portuguese nationals in 2023 in comparison with the previous year. By contrast, the number of petitions by Hungarian citizens sensibly decreased in 2023, from 33 submitted in 2022 to 21 in 2023.

     

    Two additional observations: in 2023, the number of petitions submitted by other EU nationalities increased significantly compared to 2022, from 170 to 209, and petitions submitted by non-EU nationalities slightly decreased, accounting for 3% of the total.

     

     

    2023

     

     

     

    2022

     

    Prime petitioner nationality

    Number of petitions

    %

     

    Prime petitioner nationality

    Number of petitions

    %

    Spain

    330

    22.9

     

    Spain

    266

    21.9

    Italy

    254

    17.6

     

    Germany

    251

    20.7

    Germany

    246

    17.1

     

    Italy

    159

    13.1

    Romania

    93

    6.5

     

    Romania

    78

    6.4

    France

    71

    4.9

     

    Poland

    73

    6.0

    Poland

    64

    4.4

     

    France

    60

    5.0

    Greece

    62

    4.3

     

    Greece

    60

    5.0

    Portugal

    39

    2.7

     

    Hungary

    33

    2.7

    Belgium

    29

    2.0

     

    Portugal

    26

    2.1

    Other EU nationalities

     

    209

     

    14.6

     

    Other EU nationalities

     

     

    170

     

    13.9

    Non-EU nationalities

    43

    3.0

     

    Non-EU nationalities

    49

    4.0

     

    Main subjects of petitions

     

    The tables below include the top ten petition themes. From the tables, it appears that the main themes did not differ from one year to another. While in 2022 environment, fundamental rights and justice were the top three petition themes, in 2023 environment, internal market as well as fundamental rights ranked the highest.

    In 2023 the number of petitions raising concerns over the internal market had a significant increase compared to 2022 (194 vs 84), which represent more than the double. This could be explained by the high number of petitions related to the beach concessions in Italy submitted in 2023.

    As regard petitions on health, their number in 2023 (119) remained stable compared to the 115 petitions registered under the same theme in 2022. In the field of the external relations, a slight decrease can be noted, explained by a decrease of the number of petitions on the Ukraine’s war and a significant increase of petitions dealing with the new conflict in the Middle East.

    As far as fundamental rights theme is concerned, the number of petitions on this topic is stable in 2023 compared to 2022. This might be due to the fact that in 2023, an important number of petitions (40) registered under the theme of fundamental rights raised concerns over the respect of the rule of law in Spain.

    2023

     

    2022

    Top 10 Petition themes

    Number of petitions

    %

    Environment

    308

    21.5

    Internal Market

    194

    13.4

    Fundamental Rights

    193

    13.4

    Personal Matter

    179

    12.4

    Justice

    167

    11.6

    Health

    119

    8.3

    External Relations

    96

    6.7

    Consumer’s Right

    93

    6.5

    Transport

    93

    6.5

    Constitutional Affairs

    68

    4.7

    Top 10 Petition themes

    Number of petitions

    %

    Environment

    258

    21.2

    Fundamental Rights

    211

    17.4

    Justice

    189

    15.6

    External Relations

    126

    10.4

    Personal Matter

    126

    10.4

    Health

    115

    9.5

    Employment

    73

    6.0

    Consumer’s right

    66

    5.4

    Institutions

    63

    5.2

    Energy

    61

    5.0

     

    Petitions Web Portal

    In 2023, the Petitions Web Portal, launched in late 2014, was further improved to make it more user-friendly, more secure and more accessible to petitioners.

    The Petitions Web Portal was revamped and relaunched in February 2023 to align with modern expectations and make it easier for EU27 residents to exercise their right to submit petitions to the European Parliament. The updated PETI Portal 2.0 integrated seamlessly with the EP’s web publishing tool, enabling faster and simpler content updates. Its responsive design ensured compatibility with all devices and screen sizes. New features included four ‘Quick Start Guides’ – available in all 24 EU official languages – that provide clear, step-by-step instructions for submitting, tracking and supporting petitions. Additionally, a new search engine powered by elastic search technology enhanced user experience by delivering more accurate results efficiently. The new portal prioritises a truly citizen-centred approach.

     

    In April 2023, the PETI Portal 2.0 was presented to an extended Steering Committee (comprising group advisers and DG IPOL Strategy and Innovation representatives). Updates on releases, petition statistics and a communication strategy to boost the portal’s visibility were also discussed. Moreover, the portal was actively promoted through various media channels, including Europarl, Twitter, the Director-General’s newsletter and events such as the Open Doors Day.

     

    The automatic notification system has been extended and improved to inform petitioners and supporters by email – if they have opted in – when a reply from the European Commission (“Communication to Members” or “CM”) has been published and translated into the petition’s original language and the other languages of the Committee.

     

    The PETI Portal team ensured that all petitions were published within days of their adoption and promptly responded to numerous petitioner queries – across all EU languages – received through the chatbot and Smart Helpdesk.

     

    Relations with the Commission

    The Commission remains the natural partner of the Committee on Petitions in processing petitions as the responsible EU institution for ensuring the implementation of and compliance with EU law. The committee and the Commission have a well-established and consistently maintained level of cooperation. The main contact point in the Commission is the Secretariat-General, which coordinates the distribution of petitions to the relevant Commission’s services and transmits the Commission’s replies to the secretariat of the committee. The Commission’s services participate in the meetings of the Committee of Petitions when petitions are discussed in committee on the basis of the Commission’s written reply or of other documents received. While the Commission has stepped up its efforts to provide timely responses to requests for information made by the Committee on Petitions, the committee believes that the Commission should be more actively involved in the work of the Committee on Petitions in order to ensure that petitioners receive a precise response to their requests and complaints regarding the implementation of EU law.

    Additionally, the committee reiterated its calls for regular updates on developments in infringement proceedings and EU pilot procedures, which relate to open petitions. Finally, the committee remains critical as regards the Commission’s new enforcement policy based on in its 2016 communication entitled ‘EU Law: Better Results through Better Application’ (C(2016)8600), which aims to direct citizens to the national level when complaints or petitions do not raise issues of wider principle or systematic failure to comply with EU law. In this regard, the committee considers that the Commission should check whether national authorities take the necessary steps to respond to citizens’ concerns as expressed in their petitions.

    Pursuing to the Annex IV of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission on the Timetable for the Commission’s Work Programme and as part of the annual cycle of the structured dialogue, the Committee on Petition welcomed the remote participation of Vice-President of the European Commission for Interinstitutional Relations and Foresight Maroš Šefčovič at its meeting on 28 February 2023. The exchanges of views focused on the state of implementation of the Commission Work Programme as well as on the cooperation between the Petitions Committee and the European Commission on improving relations in the handling of petitions.

    It is also worth noting the Commission’s intervention in the Committee on Petitions’ events throughout the year. In particular the intervention of representatives of the Commission during the presentation of the following studies: study on ‘The boundaries of the Commission’s discretionary powers when handling petitions and potential infringements of EU law’ (Implementation & Enforcement of EU Law) on 26 April 2023; study on “Cross-Border Legal Recognition of Parenthood in the EU” (DG JUST) on 17 July 2023; study on “Compensation for Victims of climate change disasters” (DG CLIMA) on 18 July 2023; study on “Homelessness in the European Union” (DG EMPL) on 30 November 2023.

    Representatives of the Commission also participated in several PETI hearings in 2023: public hearing on “The impact of climate change on social security and the most vulnerable groups” organised on 22 March (DG EMPL), hearing on “The state of implementation of the Habitats Directive” on 24 May 2023 (DG ENV.E – implementation and relations with Member States) with a focus on the infringement actions brought in the context of the Habitat Directive; hearing in association with Committee on Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on “Schengen Borders – issues raised by petitioners” (DG HOME – Unit of Schengen and External Borders) with a focus on “Historical overview: establishment of the Schengen agreement, its progressive extension and the transfer of the Schengen acquis to the EU competence” on 18 July 2023; hearing on “A reflection on the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions and the petitions’ systems of third countries” on 24 October 2023.

    Finally, on 29 November 2023, in the annual workshop on the rights of persons with disabilities focusing on “Coping with the cost-of-living crisis and Inclusive communication”, Helena DALLI, the former European Commissioner for Equality intervened via a recorded video statement followed by representatives of DG Communication.

    ECI

    The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) is a European Union (EU) mechanism aimed at increasing direct democracy by enabling “EU citizens to participate directly in the development of EU policies”. The initiative enables one million citizens of the European Union, who are nationals of at least seven member states, to call directly on the European Commission to propose a legal act in an area where the member states have conferred powers onto the EU level. If at the end of the procedure, the ECI initiative reaches the threshold, organisers are invited to a hearing organised by the committee for petitions, to present their initiative, and afterwards, Parliament may decide to debate further and adopt a resolution on plenary on the topic.

     

    On 24 January 2023, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) jointly with the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) and with the association of the PETI Committee, held a public hearing on the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) “Save bees and farmers! Towards a bee-friendly agriculture for a healthy environment”. The initiative requests the phasing out of synthetic pesticides by 2035, a broader support to farmers and the development of the agriculture by prioritising small scale, diverse and sustainable farming, supporting a rapid increase in agro-ecological and organic practice, and enabling independent farmer-based training and research into pesticide. The former Commissioner for the Environment, Oceans and Fisheries Virginijus Sinkevicius and the former Commissioner for agriculture Janusz Wojiechowski presented their points of view on the different topics, showing the need for legislators to work together with all the stakeholder groups.

     

    On 27 March 2023, the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) organised, in association with the Committee on Petitions and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), a public hearing on the ECI “Stop Finning – Stop the Trade”. The initiative requests to the Commission to propose legal measures to end the trade of shark and ray fins in the EU, including the import, export and transit of fins, other than if naturally attached to the animal’s body, notably by extending the scope of Regulation (EU) No 605/2013. Former Commissioner for the Environment, Oceans and Fisheries Virginijus Sinkevicius intervened stressing that ECI raises important issues that are relevant to the EU’s policy of protecting the marine environment, protecting and conserving fisheries resources and ensuring sustainable fishing in the EU and globally.

     

    On 25 May 2023, Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) organised in association with the Committee on Petitions and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI), a public hearing on the ECI “Save cruelty-free cosmetics – Commit to a Europe without animal testing”. The initiative requests three main objectives: protect and strengthen the cosmetics animal testing ban, transform EU chemicals regulation, ensuring human health and the environment by managing chemicals without the addition of new animal testing requirements and modernise science in the EU.

     

    On 12 October 2023, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) organised, in association with the Committee on Petitions, a public hearing on the ECI “Fur-Free Europe”. The initiative calls on the EU to ban the rearing and killing of animals for the purpose of fur production. It also asked for a ban on the placing on the Union market of both fur from animals farmed for their fur, as well as products containing such fur. Former Commissioner for Health and Food safety Stella Kyriakides recalled that after a deep technical analysis, the Commission will eventually evaluate the necessity and justification of the bans requested by the ECI’ organisers in pursuing objectives of environmental and public health, of animal health and welfare objectives, in ensuring that consumer concerns can be addressed in practice, as well as in ensuring a smooth operation of the internal market.

     

    Article 230 of the Rules of Procedures of the European Parliament allows the Committee on Petitions, if it considers appropriate, to examine proposed citizens’ initiatives which have been registered in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011, but which cannot be submitted to the Commission in accordance with Article 9 of that Regulation, since not all the relevant procedures and conditions laid down have been complied with. On that basis, the Committee held on 27 April 2023 a debate on the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) “Ensuring Common Commercial Policy conformity with EU Treaties and compliance with international law” with the participation of the organisers and a representative of the Commission and members of the committee. The ECI representatives’ main objective was to invite the Commission to propose a legal acts based on the Common Commercial Policy to prevent EU legal entities from both importing products originating in illegal settlements in occupied territories and exporting to such territories, in order to preserve the integrity of the internal market and to not aid or assist the maintenance of such unlawful situations. Although the ECI ended without reaching the threshold of 1 million signatures, the Committee on Petitions could shed light on it and decide to send the petition to the Committee on International Trade for opinion and to ask the European Commission for an update on this topic.

     

    In accordance with the same article, the Committee held on 24 October 2023 a debate on the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) “Good Clothes, Fair Pay”, with the participation of the organisers and a representative of the Commission and members of the committee. The ECI representatives’ main objectives were to invite the Commission to propose legislation, requiring undertakings active in the garment and footwear sector to conduct due diligence in respect of living wages in their supply chain achieving the following objectives: (a) complement and build on the ‘EU’s Sustainable Corporate Governance framework’, and the ‘EU Adequate Minimum Wage Directive’; (b) require undertakings to identify, prevent and mitigate adverse impacts on the human right to a living wage and freedom of association and collective bargaining rights; (c) reduce poverty in the Union and worldwide, paying particular attention to the circumstances of women, migrants and workers with precarious contracts and the need to combat child labour; (d) prohibit unfair trading practices which cause, or contribute to, actual and potential harms to workers in the garment and footwear sector and promote fair purchasing practices; (e) provide a right to information for consumers regarding undertakings in the garment and footwear sector; (f) improve transparency and accountability of undertakings in the garment and footwear sector. Although the ECI ended without reaching the threshold of 1 million signatures, the Committee on Petitions could shed light on it and decide to send the petition to the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs for opinion and to ask the European Commission for an update on this topic.

     

    Relations with the Council

    Members of the Council’s Secretariat may attend the meetings of the Committee on Petitions. Regrettably, in 2023, the committee did not observe Council’s participation in the debates. Nevertheless, the committee notes the participation by some local or regional authorities in the discussion on petitions in committee meetings, which in 2023 concerned mainly Spanish-related topics. Also on 30 November 2023, the committee acknowledges the participation of the Head of the Diversity and Inclusion Office of the Council of the EU at the annual workshop on the rights of persons with disabilities.

     

    Relations with the European Ombudsman

    The Committee on Petitions continued its constructive, long-standing working relations with the office of the European Ombudsman, contributing to the increase of the democratic accountability of the EU institutions.

     

    On 27 June 2023, the committee heard the presentation of the European Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2022, delivered by Ms Emily O’Reilly. The report documented the Ombudsman’s work on transparency and accountability (e.g. access to information and documents), culture and service, respect of fundamental rights, the proper use of discretion (including in infringement procedures), recruitment, good management of personnel issues, respect of procedural rights, sound financial management, ethics and public participation in EU decision-making. In 2022, the Ombudsman opened 348 inquiries, of which four were on her own initiative, while closing 330 inquiries. The largest percentage of inquiries concerned the European Commission (57.1%), followed by the European Personnel Selection Office (6.3%), the European Parliament (5.5%) and the European External Action Service (4.6%). The remaining enquires concerned other EU institutions, agencies and bodies with the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) totalling 4.3% and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency 2%.

     

    It is also worth noting the intervention by inquiries Officer in the Ombudsman’s Strategic Inquiries Team at the committee’s annual workshop on the rights of persons with disabilities which took place on 29 November 2023.

    Relations with the European Court of Auditors

    Over recent years, the Committee on Petitions has built constructive working relations with the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and has actively contributed to its annual work programmes.

    Relations with other EU bodies

    On 22 March 2023 in the frame of the workshop organised by the Committee on Petition on “The impact of climate change on social security and the most vulnerable groups’, the Head of Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation of the European Environment Agency spoke on “Social preparedness for current and future climate risks”.

    On 24 May 2023 in the frame of the workshop organised by the Committee on Petition on “The state of implementation of the Habitats Directive”, a nature and biodiversity expert at the European Environment Agency intervened in the session “How to promote full compliance by Member States of the Habitats Directive?”.

    On 20 September 2023, the Committee on Petitions organised an Interparliamentary Committee Meeting with a focus on the Cooperation with the Committees on Petitions in national Parliaments – Exchanging best practices and reflecting on new approaches and in the Panel 1 on “The right to petitions, Parliaments rules, procedures and practices” several Members of National Parliaments took the floor, in particular a Member of Spanish Senate, a member of Belgian Federal Parliament. In the second Panel titled “Best Practices And New Approaches To The Right To Petition National Parliaments’ Point Of View” some National Members intervened, among others, one Member of Italian Chamber, one Member of German Bundestag, one member of the French Senate and one Member of the Polish Sejm.

    On 24 October 2023, the Committee on Petitions organised a public hearing on “A reflection on the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions and the petitions’ systems of third countries” and in this frame several Members of the extra EU National Parliaments intervened. In particular, two representatives of the House of Commons of Canada presented “An analysis of the legal, institutional and procedural framework governing the petitions’ system in Canada”, followed by a member of Federal Senate of Brazil who analysed ‘the legal, institutional and procedural framework governing the petitions’ system in Brazil’. In the second panel of the hearing, one member of the Norwegian Parliament analysed ‘The legal, institutional and procedural framework governing the petitions’ system in Norway”.

    On 29 November 2023, a representative of the Fundamental Rights Agency took the floor in the first panel of the annual workshop on the rights of persons with disabilities.

    Fact-finding visits

    In 2023, the Committee on Petitions organised four fact-finding visits.

     

    The committee organised a fact-finding visit to Romania (Bucharest, Sfântu Gheorghe and Suceava), from 15 to 18 May 2023, on the management and the protection of the brown bear population as raised in Petitions Nos 1188/2019, 1214/2019, 0685/2020, 0534/2021, 0410/2022 and the illegal logging in the country, petitions Nos. 1248/2019, 0408/2020, 0722/2020 and1056/2021. The aim of the mission was to collect as much information as possible on the two subjects of interest, to establish facts and to seek solutions. In this regard, the delegation met various interlocutors, such as national and regional authorities, petitioners, NGOs, environmental activists, as well as representatives of academia and. Following rich exchanges, Members acquired first-hand information and knowledge about the challenges related to the management and the protection of the brown bear population and to the illegal logging and the fight against it in Romania.

     

    From 13 June to 15 June 2023, two Members of the Committee on Petitions participated in a joint ad hoc EMPL, LIBE and PETI delegation to the 16th session of the Conference of States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD COSP), which took place at the United Nations Headquarters, New York. Members participating in the delegation took part in several official sessions of the Conference, side events (including one organised by the EP), as well as in a series of bilateral meetings with UN officials, European and non-European governmental and non-governmental organisations, working for the realisation of the rights of persons with disabilities. The main purpose of the delegation was to build on the well-established contacts of the previous year and to highlight and guarantee Parliament’s oversight in the implementation and monitoring of the UN CRPD, within the “Team Europe” cooperation.

     

    A fact-finding visit was organised to the region of Donegal (Ireland) from 30 October to 1 November 2023 on the use of defective mica blocks in construction in Ireland, an alleged non-compliance with the EU Construction Products Regulation (CPR) and on the protection of homeowners as raised on Petitions Nos. 0789/2021, 0790/2021, 0799/2021, 0800/2021, 0801/2021, 0813/2021, 0814/2021 and 0837/2021.During the mission, the delegation was made aware of the large scale and complexity of the challenges related to the use of defective building blocks in construction in Ireland, with significant health, financial and social consequences.

    Between 18 and 20 December 2023, the Committee on Petitions conducted a fact-finding visit to Catalonia (Spain) with the aim of assessing in situ the language immersion model in Catalonia, its impact on families moving to and residing in the region as well as on multilingualism and non-discrimination and the principle of the Rule of Law as raised on petitions Nos. 0858/2017, 0650/2022 and 0826/2022. The objective of this fact-finding visit was to investigate the claims made in the petitions, establish facts, seek solutions and establish a dialogue with regional authorities to obtain a better insight into various aspects concerning the language immersion model in Catalonia. The mission has enabled the Committee to gain a better understanding of the model’s impact on families moving to and residing in the region as well as on multilingualism, non-discrimination and compliance with international and EU law.

    Public Hearings

    In 2023, the Committee on Petitions organised four public hearings, partly jointly with other parliamentary committees. The public hearings covered a wide range of subject raised in petitions.

     

    On 28 February 2023, the Committee on Petitions hosted a public hearing on the “language immersion model in Catalonia, Spain”. The hearing was organised as follow up on several petitions (Nos. 0858/2017and 0650/2022) on the impact of full immersion in Catalan at schools and covered four main themes: the compatibility between European regulations and case law and the linguistic model in Catalonia, the impact of linguistic immersion in Catalonia on the school performance of students whose mother tongue is Spanish, the Catalan linguistic-cultural model and the linguistic immersion in Catalonia, respect for secular bilingualism in Catalonia and compatibility with the linguistic conjunction model.

     

    On 24 May 2023, the Committee on Petitions held, in association with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, a public hearing entitled “The state of implementation of the Habitats Directive”. Following a significant number of petitions received alleging the breach of the Habitats Directive, the hearing aimed to take a closer look at how the Habitats Directive has being implemented and enforced in the Member States. It was organised in two sessions, and the experts invited, focused, in particular, on the following topics: implementation and infringement overview, implementation challenges and the infringement procedure as an efficient tool for the enforcement of the Habitats Directive. Furthermore, the speakers identified possible best practices to promote full compliance of Member States with the Habitats Directive.

     

    On 18 July 2023, the Committee on Petitions held, in association with the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, a public hearing on: ‘Schengen Borders: – issues raised by petitioners’. On the basis of several petitions Nos. 0428/2020, 0653/2020, 0227/2022, 0719/2022, 0004/2023 and 0037/2023 the hearing aimed at giving voice to citizens’ concerns over the reintroduction of border checks between some Member States (e.g. Denmark and Sweden, Denmark and Germany), thus limiting the free movement of persons within the EU. It also touched upon other aspects such as the strengths and the weaknesses, the extension of the Schengen area, as well as the costs of Non-Schengen. The exchanges were organised in two panels, with the first focusing on the historical background and the current state of play of the Schengen area and the second on the issue of reintroduced border controls within the Schengen area. The Commission pointed out the ongoing dialogue with the Member States and the review of the Schengen Borders Code and stressed that the enlargement of the Schengen area remains a priority.

     

    On 24 October 2023, the Committee held the public hearing ‘A reflection on the EP Committee on Petitions and the petitions’ systems of third countries’. The hearing focused on the analysis and comparison of the EU petitions’ system and the petitions’ systems of selected non-European countries with shared democratic values, namely Canada, Brazil and Norway. The aim was to exchange best practices that could inspire the EU petitions’ system to become more efficient and closer to the citizens and to gather evidence on how citizens can bring forward their concerns through petitions. The experts analysed the legal, procedural and institutional framework governing the Canadian, Brazilian and Norwegian petitions’ systems, as well as the differences with the EU system concerning the submission, admissibility, examination and closure of petitions.

    Workshops

    In 2023, the Committee on Petitions organised three workshops covering subject-matters raised in petitions.

     

    On 25 January 2023, the Committee on Petitions held a workshop on “Transparency of pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products”. The workshop discussed transparency from the perspective of patients/consumers, producers of medicinal products, and academic research. The discussions focused on research and development costs of companies and information available on the actual prices paid for medicines. The exchanges concluded that without full transparency on these issues, any discussion on fair medicine prices and access to medicinal products remains highly difficult.

     

    On 22 March 2023, the Committee on Petitions hosted a workshop on “The impact of climate change on social security and the most vulnerable groups”. The workshop focused on the effects of climate change on vulnerable groups in society, such as the elderly, low-income families, and people with disabilities. It also looked into the role attribution science – an area of science that aims to determine which extreme weather events can be explained by or linked to climate change – can play in helping develop (social) policies for the future.

     

    On 29 November 2023, the Committee on Petitions held its “Annual Workshop on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”, during the first European Parliament’s Disability Rights Week. The workshop focused on two themes: coping with the cost-of-living crisis and on inclusive communication. The first panel looked into the situation of persons with disabilities in the context of recent crises (COVID-19 pandemic, energy crisis and rising inflation) and discussed proposals for measures to overcome obstacles. The second panel debated the European institutions’ efforts to ensure effective communication with and about persons with disabilities, both internally and in their relations with citizens.

    Studies

    In 2023, the committee heard the presentations of the following studies commissioned by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at its request:

    – Study on ‘FATCA legislation and its application at international and EU level: – An Update’ on 25 January 2023. Professor C. Garbarino described the most relevant developments in the period 2018-2022 in chronological order and drew conclusions, which include a systemic view of the institutional dynamics, a provisional legal analysis on the basis of existing rules and policy suggestions.

    – Study on “Environmental Crime affecting EU financial interest, the economic recovery and the EU’s green deal objectives”, presented by Prof. Dr Michael G. Faure (Professor of comparative and international environmental law at Maastricht University and Professor of comparative private law and economics at Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam) and Dr. Kévine Kindji, (Research fellow at at the Maastricht European Institute for Transnational Legal Research (METRO) at Maastricht University) on 25 January 2023. The study suggested that despite commendable efforts, the transnational nature of environmental crime and its convergence with organised crime, money laundering and corruption, have not been adequately integrated into current reforms. It concluded that a proper categorization of environmental crime as a ‘serious crime’ was needed as an essential basis for policy reforms;

     

    – Study on ‘The boundaries of the Commission’s discretionary powers when handling petitions and potential infringements of EU law’, presented by Prof. Armin Cuyvers (Leiden University) on 26 April 2023. The study analysed the legal limits on the discretion of the Commission when deciding to launch, or not to launch, an infringement action, especially in response to a petition. In addition, it assessed how the Commission uses this discretion in practice, and formulates recommendations on improved political collaboration between the European Parliament and the Commission, in the interest of EU citizens;

     

    – Study on “Cross-Border Legal Recognition of Parenthood in the EU”, presented by Professor Alina Tryfonidou (Neapolis University) on 17 July 2023. It examined the problem of non-recognition of parenthood between Member States and its causes, the current legal framework and the (partial) solutions it offers to this problem, the background of the Commission proposal, and the text of the proposal. It also provides for a critical assessment of the proposal and issues policy recommendations for its improvement;

     

    – Study on “Compensation for Victims of climate change disasters”, presented by Professor Michael Faure (Maastricht University and Erasmus Universit), on 18 July 2023. The study outlined the dangers and effects of climate change in the EU, as well as the EU policies and mechanisms to deal with climate change disasters. It also analysed the types of compensation available to victims of climate change disasters in the EU and in a representative selection of Member States and formulated several policy recommendations;

     

    – Study on “Homelessness in the European Union” presented by Professor Eoin O’Sullivan, (Trinity College) on 30 November 2023. The study insisted on the need to change systems that respond to homelessness as an issue of individual dysfunction and inadequacy, to systems that actually end homelessness. Public policy should aim to prevent homelessness in the first instance. It highlighted that the duration of homelessness should be minimised by rapidly providing secure, affordable housing, in order to reduce further experiences of homelessness, decrease costly emergency accommodation, and alleviate trauma associated with homelessness.

     

    In addition, in the frame of the Annual Workshop on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 29 November 2023, the following study has been presented by Magdi Birtha (European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research):

    – Study on “Targeted measures for persons with disabilities to cope with the cost-of-living crisis”. The study analysed the impact of the ongoing cost-of-living and energy crises on the standard of living for persons with disabilities. Based on available evidence, it provided for an overview on legislation, policy measures and schemes that support persons with disabilities and their families to cope with the rising cost of living at EU level and in selected Member States.

    Key issues

    Internal Market

    It is worth noting the high increase in 2023 in the number of petitions on internal market issues. This rise is in large part due to a high number of petitions submitted on the situation of the beach concessions in Italy in particular on alleged non-compliance with Directive 2006/123/EC on liberalisation of services (‘Bolkestein Directive’). A second major topic is related to the citizens’ concerns over the reintroduction of border checks between some Member States (e.g. Denmark and Sweden, Denmark and Germany), thus limiting the free movement of persons within the EU and other aspects such as the strengths and the weaknesses, the extension of the Schengen area, as well as the costs of Non-Schengen in particular for Romania and Bulgaria.

    The Committee adopted a short motion of resolution on the Accession to the Schengen area on 27 June 2023 and organised a public hearing on Schengen Borders: – issues raised by petitioners on 18 July 2023.

    Fundamental Rights

    Still in 2023, the committee received a high number of petitions on fundamental rights, including alleged breaches of the General Data Protection Regulation in different EU countries and on the respect of the rule of law and democracy.

    In addition, the Committee continued to receive petitions on the violation of the human rights in several third countries and a series of petitions on the fundamental rights of LGBT-EU citizens.

    Other relevant topic concerned the homelessness in the EU, how to deal with this sensitive issue and a study has been presented on November 2023, insisting on the need to change systems that respond to homelessness as an issue of individual dysfunction and inadequacy, to systems that actually end homelessness, with a new role of the public sectors.

    Environmental issues

    In 2023, environmental issues remained high in citizens’ concerns and the committee paid paramount attention to them. The protection of the environment was discussed in almost all committee meetings, on the basis of petitions. Topics such as protection of wildlife and forest policy within the EU have been discussed as well as alleged breaches of the Habitats Directive in some Member States.

    The Committee exanimated also petitions on the protection of the quality of groundwater resources against chemical environmental pollution and on control of the air pollution and air quality safeguarding of the health of the population concerned.

    In addition, the committee held fact-finding visit to Romania (Bucharest, Sfântu Gheorghe and Suceava), in relation to several petitions that raised some issues as the management and the protection of the brown bear population and the illegal logging in the country.

    Other topics submitted to the attention of the PETI committee have concerned alleged breaches of EU environmental law and the new dimension of the climate change. In this frame, the Committee on Petitions held a workshop on the impact of climate change on social security and the most vulnerable groups on March 2023 and in its meeting of July 2023, a study on Compensation for victims of climate change disasters has been presented and discussed.

    The animal welfare became a relevant topic in 2023, with a series of petitions calling for a revision of the legislation on animal welfare and a specific legislation for the protection and management of companion, domestic and stray animals inside the EU. The Committee examined petitions against the cruel treatment of animals in different Member States and proposed to have a Commissioner specifically competent for the animal welfare issues.

    Disability issues

    The Committee on Petitions plays a specific protection role as regards compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights for Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) within the policymaking and legislative actions at EU level. Within this responsibility, the committee deals with petitions on disability issues. It is worth stressing that in 2023 the number of petitions on disability (22) slightly decreased in comparison with 2022 but almost doubled as compared to 2021 (28 in 2022 and 13 in 2021). In 2023, the committee continued examining petitions on disability revealing that the main challenges remain discrimination, access to education and employment as well as inclusion. Special attention was given by the committee to Petition No 0822/2022 asking for the European Disability Statute to contemplate the rights of people with autism followed by the approval of a short motion of resolution on the same topic, Petition No 0756/2019 on an EU-wide disability card, Petition No 1056/2016 requesting the European Parliament allow for the tabling of petitions in national sign languages used in the EU as well as Petition No 0569/2023 on the accessibility of public transport for wheelchair users in Belgium.

    From 13 June to 15 June 2023, the Committee on Petitions participated in a joint ad hoc EMPL, LIBE and PETI delegation to the 16th session of the Conference of States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD COSP), which took place at the United Nations Headquarters, New York. The main purpose of the delegation was to build on the well-established contacts of the previous year and to highlight and guarantee Parliament’s oversight in the implementation and monitoring of the UN CRPD, within the “Team Europe” cooperation. It gave the delegation the opportunity to exchange views and discussed how ensuring equal access to and accessibility of sexual and reproductive health services for persons with disabilities and improve their digital accessibility.

     

    Finally, on 29 November 2023, the Committee hosted the Annual Workshop on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, focusing in the first part on ‘Coping with the cost-of-living crisis’. where the situation of persons with disabilities in the face of recent crises has been presented (the energy crisis following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, together with rising inflation) and some proposals for targeted measures to overcome obstacles have been discussed (EU funds, the European Social Fund Plus and temporary instruments, the Recovery and Resilience Funds (RRF)). In the second panel on ‘Inclusive communication’ the focus was on the efforts made by the European Institutions to ensure effective communication with and about persons with disabilities, both internally and in their relations with citizens.

    Reports, Motions for Resolutions and Opinions

    The Committee on Petitions worked intensely to adopt a considerable number of parliamentary files.

     

    In 2023, the Committee on Petitions adopted three own initiative reports as follows:

     

    – Report on the Activities of the European Ombudsman – Annual Report 2021” (2022/2141(INI)) PETI/9/10044 – Rapporteur: Anne Sophie Pelletier (GUE) – adopted on 28 February 2023;

    – Report under Rule 227(7) on the Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions in 2022” (2023/2047(INI)) PETI/9/11741 – Rapporteur: Alex AGIUS SALIBA (S&D) – adopted on 24 October 2023;

    – Report on the Activities of the European Ombudsman – Annual Report 2022” (2023/2120(INI)) PETI/9/12602 – Rapporteur: Peter JAHR (EPP) – adopted on 29 November 2023;

     

    The Committee also adopted the following fact-finding visits mission reports:

     

    – Report of the fact-finding visit to Poland 19-21 September 2022 PETI/9/11016 – adopted on 22 March 2023;

    – Report of the fact-finding visit to Washington D.C. 18-22 July 2022 PETI/9/11015 adopted on 22 March 2023;

    – Report of fact-finding visit to Germany from 3 to 4 November 2022 on the functioning of the “Jugendamt” (Youth Welfare Office) PETI/9/11343 adopted on 26 April 2023;

    – Report of Fact-Finding Visit to Romania from 15 to 18 May 2023 on the management and the protection of the brown bear population and the illegal logging in Romania, as raised in Petitions Nos: 1188/2019, 1214/2019, 0685/2020, 0534/2021, 0410/2022 (the brown bear population), as well as 1248/2019, 0408/2020, 0722/2020, 1056/2021 (the illegal logging) PETI/9/13165 – adopted on 29 November 2023;

     

    In addition, the committee adopted the following Motions for Resolutions:

     

    – Short motion for resolution on the Accession to the Schengen area 2023/2668(RSP), PETI/9/11832 – Rapporteur: Dolors Montserrat (Chair) – adopted on 27 June 2023;

    – Short motion for resolution on Standardised dimensions for carry-on luggage 2023/2774(RSP) PETI/9/12441 – Rapporteur: Dolors Montserrat (Chair) – adopted on 20 September 2023;

    – Short motion for resolution on Harmonising the rights of autistic persons, 2023/2768 (RSP) PETI/9/12151 – Rapporteur: Dolors Montserrat (Chair) – adopted on 20 September 2023;

     

    In 2023, the Committee on Petitions also adopted two opinions, as follows:

     

    – Opinion in form of a letter on Monitoring the application of European Union Law 2020, 2021 and 2022, 2023/2080(INI) PETI/9/12224 – Rapporteur: Loránt Vincze (EPP) – adopted on 20 September 2023;

    – Opinion in form of a letter on Establishing the European Disability Card and the European Parking Card for persons with disabilities, 2023/0311(COD) PETI/9/13175 – Rapporteur: Dolors Montserrat (EPP) – adopted on 29 November 2023;

     

    Finally, the committee adopted the following texts:

     

    – Amendments to the Budget 2024 – adopted on 18 July 2023.

    – Oral Question on Improving the strategic approach on the enforcement of EU Law 2023/2886(RSP) PETI/9/13266 – Rapporteur: Dolors Montserrat (Chair) – adopted on 24 October 2023.

     

    ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

    The rapporteur declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

    INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

    Date adopted

    8.4.2025

     

     

     

    Result of final vote

    +:

    –:

    0:

    16

    13

    4

    Members present for the final vote

    Peter Agius, Alexander Bernhuber, Damien Carême, Alma Ezcurra Almansa, Gheorghe Falcă, Chiara Gemma, Isilda Gomes, Sandra Gómez López, Cristina Guarda, Paolo Inselvini, Michał Kobosko, Sebastian Kruis, Murielle Laurent, Dolors Montserrat, Valentina Palmisano, Pina Picierno, Bogdan Rzońca, Pál Szekeres, Jana Toom, Nils Ušakovs, Ivaylo Valchev, Anders Vistisen, Maria Zacharia

    Substitutes present for the final vote

    Gordan Bosanac, Hana Jalloul Muro, Elena Nevado del Campo

    Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote

    Maravillas Abadía Jover, Adrian-George Axinia, Marieke Ehlers, Tomasz Froelich, Eleonora Meleti, Elena Sancho Murillo, Marion Walsmann

     

     

     

    FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

    16

    +

    ECR

    Bogdan Rzońca

    PPE

    Maravillas Abadía Jover, Peter Agius, Alexander Bernhuber, Alma Ezcurra Almansa, Gheorghe Falcă, Eleonora Meleti, Dolors Montserrat, Elena Nevado del Campo, Marion Walsmann

    PfE

    Marieke Ehlers, Sebastian Kruis, Pál Szekeres, Anders Vistisen

    Renew

    Michał Kobosko, Jana Toom

     

    13

    –

    ESN

    Tomasz Froelich

    NI

    Maria Zacharia

    S&D

    Isilda Gomes, Sandra Gómez López, Hana Jalloul Muro, Murielle Laurent, Pina Picierno, Elena Sancho Murillo, Nils Ušakovs

    The Left

    Damien Carême, Valentina Palmisano

    Verts/ALE

    Gordan Bosanac, Cristina Guarda

     

    4

    0

    ECR

    Adrian‑George Axinia, Chiara Gemma, Paolo Inselvini, Ivaylo Valchev

     

    Key to symbols:

    + : in favour

    – : against

    0 : abstention

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Press release – EP TODAY – Tuesday, 6 May

    Source: European Parliament

    EU response to US tariffs

    From 9:00, MEPs, Commissioner Šefčovič and Polish Minister for EU Affairs Szłapka will discuss how the EU should respond to the tariffs imposed by the US Administration. MEPs will consider the countermeasures adopted by the EU – which were later suspended – and review EU trade opportunities elsewhere in the world.

    Lieven COSIJN

    (+32) 473 86 41 41

    EPTrade

    MEPs’ priorities for the EU’s next long-term budget

    From around 13:00, Parliament will outline its demands and priorities for the EU’s next long-term budget (2028-2034), in a debate with Commissioner Serafin. MEPs are expected to call for a significantly more ambitious long-term budget to reflect EU citizens’ expectations amidst an increasingly complex global landscape. A resolution will be put to a vote by MEPs on Wednesday, followed by a press conference with the co-rapporteurs. An off-the-record technical briefing for journalists will take place on Tuesday after the debate, from 15:30 to16:30.

    Eszter ZALÁN

    (+32) 477 99 20 73

    EP Trade

    EP_Budgets

    Fast-tracking CO2 flexibility measures for car manufacturers: vote

    In a vote at noon, plenary will decide whether to apply its “urgent procedure” to proposed legislation giving car manufacturers more flexibility to comply with C02 emissions requirements. Ahead of the vote, there will be one round of statements from the political group representatives. If MEPs agree to fast-track the proposal, they will vote on its substance on Thursday.

    Dana POPP

    (+32) 470 95 17 07

    EP_Environment

    EP_PublicHealth

    Wolves: MEPs to vote on changing EU protection status

    At noon, MEPs will also decide on whether to apply the “urgent procedure” to draft legislation that would change the EU’s wolf protection status from ‘strictly protected’ to ‘protected’, aligning it with the Bern Convention. If the vote goes through, MEPs will vote on the substance of the proposal on Thursday.

    Thomas HAAHR

    (+32) 470 88 09 87

    EP_Environment

    MEPs to assess EU-Türkiye relations

    In the evening, MEPs and Commissioner Kos will review Türkiye’s accession progress and relations with the EU. The draft text – on which plenary will vote on Wednesday – states that Türkiye’s EU accession process cannot resume under the current circumstances, given the widening values gap between Türkiye and the EU. The rapporteur will hold a press conference on Wednesday morning ahead of the plenary vote.

    Snjezana KOBESCAK SMODIS

    (+32) 470 96 08 19

    EP_Democracy

    EP_ForeignAff

    Viktor ALMQVIST

    (+32) 470 88 29 42

    EP_ForeignAff

    EP_Defence

    EP_HumanRights

    In brief

    Kosovo and Serbia. In the evening, MEPs and Commissioner Kos will evaluate Kosovo and Serbia’s progress towards EU membership. The vote will take place on Wednesday, followed by a press conference.

    Water resilience strategy. In the early evening, Parliament and Commissioner Roswall will debate MEPs’ views on water resilience ahead of the European Commission’s strategy, due in July 2025. The vote is on Wednesday.

    Greenland. In a late afternoon debate with EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, MEPs are expected to call for the protection of Greenland’s right to decide its own future.

    Budget discharge. From around 15:00, MEPs and Commissioner Serafin will assess the EU’s budget management for 2023, followed by votes on Wednesday.

    Votes

    At noon, MEPs will also vote, among other things, on

    • protecting the EU’s financial interests and combating fraud (2023 annual report);
    • the financial activities of the European Investment Bank (2023 annual report), and
    • EU aid worth €8 million for 2,400 dismissed workers in Belgium.

    Live coverage of the plenary session can be found on Parliament’s webstreaming site and on EbS+.

    For detailed information on the session, please also see our newsletter.

    Find more information regarding plenary.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: CECO Environmental Announces Upcoming Investor Conferences

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    ADDISON, Texas, May 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — CECO Environmental Corp. (Nasdaq: CECO), a leading environmentally focused, diversified industrial company whose solutions protect people, the environment and industrial equipment, today announces that CECO management will participate at the following investor conferences:

    • May 13, 2025 – The ONE Houlihan Lokey Global Industrials Conference
    • May 28, 2025 – The 22nd Annual Craig-Hallum Institutional Investor Conference in Minneapolis.
    • June 10, 2025 – The Wells Fargo 2025 Industrials Conference in Chicago (To be confirmed)
    • June 12, 2025 – The 15th Annual East Coast IDEAS Conference in New York.  
    • June 25, 2025 – The Northland Growth Virtual Conference
    • June 24-26, 2025 – The 15th Annual ROTH London Conference

    The presentations will be available on the Investor Relations section of the Company’s website www.cecoenviro.com.

    ABOUT CECO ENVIRONMENTAL
    CECO Environmental is a leading environmentally focused, diversified industrial company, serving a broad landscape of industrial air, industrial water, and energy transition markets globally through its key business segments: Engineered Systems and Industrial Process Solutions. Providing innovative technology and application expertise, CECO helps companies grow their business with safe, clean, and more efficient solutions that help protect people, the environment and industrial equipment. In regions around the world, CECO works to improve air quality, optimize the energy value chain, and provide custom solutions for applications in power generation, petrochemical processing, refining, midstream gas transport and treatment, electric vehicle and battery production, metals and mineral processing, polysilicon production, battery recycling, beverage can production, and produced and oily water/wastewater treatment along with a wide range of other industrial applications. CECO is listed on Nasdaq under the ticker symbol “CECO.” Incorporated in 1966, CECO’s global headquarters is in Addison, Texas. For more information, please visit www.cecoenviro.com.

    Company Contact:
    Peter Johansson
    Chief Financial and Strategy Officer
    888-990-6670
            
    Investor Relations Contact:
    Steven Hooser and Jean Marie Young
    Three Part Advisors
    214-872-2710
    Investor.Relations@OneCECO.com

    The MIL Network –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Enlight Renewable Energy Reports First Quarter 2025 Financial Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    All of the amounts disclosed in this press release are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted

    TEL AVIV, Israel, May 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Enlight Renewable Energy Ltd. (NASDAQ: ENLT, TASE: ENLT) today reported financial results for the first quarter of 2025 ending March 31, 2025. Registration links for the Company’s earnings English and Hebrew conference call and webcasts can be found at the end of this earnings release.

    Financial Highlights

    3 months ending March 31, 2025

    • Revenues and income of $130m, up 39% year over year
    • Adjusted EBITDA1 of $132m, up 84% year over year
    • Net income of $102m, up 316% year over year
    • Cash flow from operations of $44m, up 24% year over year
      For the three months ended
     ($ millions) 31/03/2025 31/03/2024 % change
    Revenues and Income 130 94 39%
    Net Income 102 24 316%
    Adjusted EBITDA 132 72 84%
    Cash Flow from Operating Activities 44 35 24%

    ________________________
    1 The Company is unable to provide a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to Net Income on a forward-looking basis without unreasonable effort because items that impact this IFRS financial measure are not within the Company’s control and/or cannot be reasonably predicted. Please refer to the reconciliation table in Appendix 2

    • In January 2025, the Company announced the sale of 44% of the Sunlight cluster of renewable energy projects in Israel for a consideration of $52m at a valuation of $119m, and deconsolidated the cluster from its balance sheet. The transaction added $42m to Adjusted EBITDA (actual consideration received less the book value of the associated assets) and $80m to net profit in the 1Q25 results.
    • A detailed analysis of financial results appears below

    Impact of U.S. Tariffs on the Company’s Operations

    Enlight’s procurement strategy has effectively mitigated significant exposure to increased U.S. import tariffs. The agreements and good relationships we have with our supply chain partners allow for a significant distribution of the impact of tariffs.

    Costs

    • Solar panels for projects under construction are either domestically constructed or sourced from outside China and carry no tariff exposure
    • 80% of battery capacity for projects under construction is supplied by Tesla, a supplier with high levels of domestic U.S. manufacturing

    Revenues

    • Negotiations for PPA price adjustments are now underway to account for higher tariff-related construction costs

    “Enlight showed strong financial results for 1Q25, including 84% growth in Adjusted EBITDA and a 316% rise in net profit,” said Gilad Yavetz, CEO of Enlight Renewable Energy.

    “The introduction of U.S. tariffs underscores how Enlight’s diversified procurement strategy in this market over the past two years has proven itself, effectively shielding us from cost increases. As a result, our U.S. projects now under construction, with total capex of $1.7bn, have no solar panel exposure under the current tariff policy. Selecting Tesla as our primary storage supplier further strengthens this position – its substantial levels of U.S. manufacturing offer greater tariff protection than other battery suppliers.

    “Securing $1.8bn in financing over recent months marks a significant milestone, and was achieved through three financial closings, a sale of a stake in the Sunlight cluster to institutional investors, and a successful bond issuance. This funding will enable the launch of our aggressive plan to begin construction on 4.7 FGW of capacity in 2025. Combined with our existing operating portfolio, these projects represent 90% of the capacity required to reach an annual revenue and income run rate of $1.4bn by 2027.”

    Portfolio Review

    • Enlight’s total portfolio is comprised of 19.2 GW of generation capacity and 49.8 GWh storage (33.4 FGW2)
    • Of this, the Mature portfolio component (including operating projects, projects under construction or pre-construction) contains 6.1 GW generation capacity and 8.8 GWh of storage (8.6 FGW)
    • Within the Mature portfolio component, the operating component has 2.5 GW of generation capacity and 1.9 GWh of storage (3.0 FGW)

    The full composition of the portfolio appears in the following table:

    Component Status FGW2 Annual revenues &
    income run rate ($m)
    Operating Commercial operation 3.0 ~5003
    Under Construction Under construction 1.8 ~305
    Pre-Construction 0-12 months to start of construction 3.8 ~615
    Total Mature Portfolio Mature 8.6 1,420~
    Advanced Development 13-24 months to start of construction 7 –
    Development 2+ years to start of construction 17.8 –
    Total Portfolio   33.4 –

    ________________________
    2 FGW (Factored GW) is a consolidated metric combining generation and storage capacity into a uniform figure based on the ratio of construction costs. The company’s current weighted average construction cost ratio is 3.5 GWh of storage per 1 GW of generation: FGW = GW + GWh / 3.5
    3 Based on the midpoint of 2025 guidance.

    • Operating component of the portfolio: 3 FGW
      • The operational portfolio totals 3 GW of capacity is spread over three regions: 44% of the capacity is located in 7 European countries, 29% is located in Israel, and 27% in the U.S.
      • 81% of the operational capacity sells electricity under PPA agreements, with 29% of the power sold under inflation-linked PPAs.
      • The operational portfolio generates annualized revenues and income of approximately $500 million.
         
    • Under Construction component of the portfolio: 1.8 FGW
      • Consists of three projects in the U.S. with a total capacity of 1.4 FGW; the Gecama Solar project in Spain with a capacity of 0.3 FGW; the solar and storage cluster in Israel; and the addition of storage capacity at project Bjornberget in Sweden. Approximately half of the cluster is expected to reach COD in 2025, with the rest expected to commission in 2026.
      • Projects under construction are expected to contribute $305m to the annual revenues and income run rate during their first full year of operation
         
    • Pre-construction component of the portfolio: 3.8 FGW
       
      • Two mega projects in the U.S., Snowflake and CO Bar, with a combined capacity of 2.6 FGW will begin construction in 2025 and are expected to contribute $455m to revenues and income on an annualized basis.
      • Nardo, a stand alone storage project in Italy with a capacity of 0.25 FGW, is expected to begin construction in 2H25. The Pre-construction portion of the Mature portfolio includes additional projects in Israel, Hungary, and the US with a combined capacity of 0.9 FGW.
      • Pre-construction projects are expected to contribute $615m in revenues and income in their first full year of operations.

        The under construction and pre-construction projects are expected to reach COD by the end of 2027, which is expected to boost operating capacity to 8.6 FGW and the annualized revenue and income run rate to $1.4bn.

    • Advanced Development component of the portfolio component: 7 FGW
      • 5.7 FGW in the U.S., with 100% of the capacity having passed completion of the System Impact Study, the most important study of the grid connection process, significantly de-risking the portfolio.
      • The U.S. pipeline includes several mega-projects, including the 1.4 FGW Cedar Island facility in Oregon and the 1.1 FGW Blackwater project in Virginia.
      • The U.S. portfolio includes several follow-ons to Mature projects, such as Atrisco 2 (0.7 FGW), the energy storage expansion at CO-Bar (0.9 FGW), and Snowflake B (1.3 FGW).
      • These projects reflect the Company’s “Connect and Expand” strategy, leveraging existing grid infrastructure with the development of new ones, thereby reducing construction costs and project risks while improving project returns.
      • 0.7 FGW in Europe, focused on Italy, Spain, and Croatia.
      • 0.6 FGW in MENA, focused on solar and storage projects and stand alone storage facilities, including approximately 0.4 FGW that won availability tariffs as part of the Israel Electricity Authority’s first high voltage storage availability tariff tender.
         
    • Development component of the portfolio: 17.8 FGW
      • 12 FGW in the U.S. with broad geographic presence, including the PJM, WECC, SPP and MISO regions. The storage portion of the US portfolio has grown by 5.6 FGW to reflect greater demand for energy storage in this region.
      • 3 FGW in Europe, focused on Italy, Spain, Croatia and entry into stand-alone storage operations in Poland.
      • 2.8 FGW in MENA, focused on solar combined storage projects and stand-alone storage facilities.

    Mature Portfolio Components Expected to Generate Annualized Revenues and Income of ~$1.4bn4,5

    ________________________
    4 Projection based on 2025 guidance, adding on total revenues and income (sales of electricity and tax benefits) of under construction and pre-construction projects
    5 The company’s revenues from tax benefits are estimated at approximately 20-24% of the total revenue run rate for December 2025; approximately 22-26% of the total revenue run rate for December 2026, and approximately 26-30% of the total revenue run rate for December 2027

    Financing Activities

    • During the quarter, the Company secured $1bn in financial closings for the Country Acres and Quail Ranch projects, representing 830 FMW of combined capacity.
    • Along with the financial close on the 560 FMW Roadrunner project in December 2024, the financing for the second wave of U.S. projects in now complete, with a total of $1.5bn raised.
    • Raising $245m through the sale of Series G and H bonds to finance the Company’s growth.
    • Sale of 44% of the Sunlight cluster for $52m cash at a valuation of $119m, generating Adjusted EBITDA of $42m (actual consideration received less associated book value of assets) and a pre-tax profit of $97m.
    • As of the balance sheet date, the Company maintained $350m of revolving credit facilities, of which none have been drawn.

    2025 Guidance

    Construction and commissioning

    • Expected commissioning of 0.9 FGW of capacity, which is expected to add approximately $148-152m to annualized revenues and income and $129-133m annualized EBITDA, starting in 2026.
    • Starting construction on 2.9 FGW of capacity, which is expected to add approximately $487-495m in annualized revenues and income and approximately $428-436m in annualized EBITDA gradually through 2026-2027.

    Financial guidance

    • Total revenues and income6 for 2025 are expected to range between $490m and $510m. Of the projected revenues and income, 38% are expected to be denominated in ILS, 35% in EUR, and 27% in USD.
    • Adjusted EBITDA7 for 2025 is expected to range between $360m and $380m.
    • Approximately 90% of the electricity volumes expected to be generated in 2025 will be sold at fixed prices through PPAs or hedges.

    ________________________
    6 Total revenues and income include revenues from the sale of electricity along with income from tax benefits from US projects amounting to $60m-80m.
    7 EBITDA is a non-IFRS financial measure. The Company is unable to provide a reconciliation of EBITDA to Net Income on a forward-looking basis without unreasonable effort because items that impact this IFRS financial measure are not within the Company’s control and/or cannot be reasonably predicted. Please refer to the reconciliation table in Appendix 2.

    Financial Results Analysis

    Revenues & Income by Segment
    ($ millions) For the three months ended  
    Segment 31/03/2025 31/03/2024 % change
    MENA 42,867 28,474 51%
    Europe 51,384 59,160 (13%)
    U.S. 34,789 4,495 674%
    Other 829 1,532 (46%)
    Total Revenues & Income 129,869 93,661 39%


    Revenues & Income

    In the first quarter of 2025, the Company’s total revenues and income increased to $130m, up from $94m last year, a growth rate of 39% year over year. This was composed of revenues from the sale of electricity, which rose 21% to $110m compared to $90m in the same period of 2024, as well as recognition of $20m in income from tax benefits, up 516% compared to $3m in 1Q24.

    The Company benefited from the revenues and income contribution of newly operational projects. Since the first quarter of last year, 576 MW and 1,526 MWh of new projects were connected to the grid and began selling electricity, including seven of the Israel Solar and Storage Cluster units in Israel, Atrisco in the U.S, Pupin in Serbia, and Tapolca in Hungary. The most important increases in revenue from the sale of electricity originated at Atrisco, which added $13m, followed by the Israel Solar and Storage Cluster, with $11m, while Pupin contributed $6m. In total, new projects contributed $30m to revenues from the sale of electricity.

    Offsetting this growth, the amount of electricity generated at our wind projects operating in Europe was lower compared to the same period last year mainly due to weaker wind volumes. In addition, generation at project Bjornberget in Sweden this quarter fell compared to last year due to a blade malfunction experienced at one of the site’s turbines. This prompted a complete shutdown of the wind farm, which is now in the process of gradually resuming operations. The Company recognized compensation of $4m from Bjornberget’s operating contractor in lieu of the lost revenues, which is recorded in other income.

    Revenues and income were distributed between MENA, Europe, and the US, with 34% denominated in Israeli Shekel, 39% in Euros, and 27% denominated in US Dollars.

    Net Income

    In the first quarter of 2025, the Company’s net income amounted to $102m compared to $24m last year, an increase of 316% year over year. This increase stems from the $28m increase in revenues and income and $80m profit from the partial sale of the Sunlight cluster. This was offset by higher total operating expenses of $17m and net financial expenses of $10m (all after tax).

    Adjusted EBITDA8

    The Company’s Adjusted EBITDA grew by 84% to $132m in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $72m for the same period in 2024. Of this increase, $36m was driven by the factors described in the Revenues and Income section. The partial sale of the Sunlight cluster contributed $42m, representing the actual consideration received less the book value of the associated assets. Offsetting this growth was an increase of $11m in COGS linked to the addition of new projects, and an increase of $4m in operating expenses. Adjusting for the effects of this transaction, 1Q25 Adjusted EBITDA grew by 25% year-on-year to $90m.

    ________________________
    8 Adjusted EBITDA is a non-IFRS measure. Please see the appendix of this presentation for a reconciliation to Net Income

    Conference Call Information

    Enlight plans to hold its First Quarter 2025 Conference Call and Webcasts on Tuesday, May 6, 2025 to review its financial results and business outlook in both English and Hebrew. Management will deliver prepared remarks followed by a question-and-answer session. Participants can join by dial-in or webcast:

    Upon registering, you will be emailed a dial-in number, direct passcode and unique PIN.

    The press release with the financial results as well as the investor presentation materials will be accessible from the Company’s website prior to the conference call. Approximately one hour after completion of the live call, an archived version of the webcast will be available on the Company’s investor relations website at https://enlightenergy.co.il/info/investors/.

    Supplemental Financial and Other Information

    We intend to announce material information to the public through the Enlight investor relations website at https://enlightenergy.co.il/info/investors, SEC filings, press releases, public conference calls, and public webcasts. We use these channels to communicate with our investors, customers, and the public about our company, our offerings, and other issues. As such, we encourage investors, the media, and others to follow the channels listed above, and to review the information disclosed through such channels. Any updates to the list of disclosure channels through which we will announce information will be posted on the investor relations page of our website.

    Non-IFRS Financial Measures

    This release presents Adjusted EBITDA, a financial metric, which is provided as a complement to the results provided in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IFRS”). A reconciliation of the non-IFRS financial information to the most directly comparable IFRS financial measure is provided in the accompanying tables found at the end of this release.

    We define Adjusted EBITDA as net income (loss) plus depreciation and amortization, share based compensation, finance expenses, taxes on income and share in losses of equity accounted investees and minus finance income and non-recurring portions of other income, net. For the purposes of calculating Adjusted EBITDA, compensation for inadequate performance of goods and services procured by the Company are included in other income, net. Compensation for inadequate performance of goods and services reflects the profits the Company would have generated under regular operating conditions and is therefore included in Adjusted EBITDA. With respect to gains (losses) from asset disposals, as part of Enlight’s strategy to accelerate growth and reduce the need for equity financing, the Company sells parts of or the entirety of selected renewable project assets from time to time, and therefore includes realized gains or losses from these asset disposals in Adjusted EBITDA. In the case of partial assets disposals, Adjusted EBITDA includes only the actual consideration less the book value of the assets sold. Our management believes Adjusted EBITDA is indicative of operational performance and ongoing profitability and uses Adjusted EBITDA to evaluate the operating performance and for planning and forecasting purposes.

    Non-IFRS financial measures have limitations as analytical tools and should not be considered in isolation or as substitutes for financial information presented under IFRS. There are a number of limitations related to the use of non-IFRS financial measures versus comparable financial measures determined under IFRS. For example, other companies in our industry may calculate the non-IFRS financial measures that we use differently or may use other measures to evaluate their performance. All of these limitations could reduce the usefulness of our non-IFRS financial measures as analytical tools. Investors are encouraged to review the related IFRS financial measure, Net Income, and the reconciliations of Adjusted EBITDA provided below to Net Income and to not rely on any single financial measure to evaluate our business.

    Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We intend such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements as contained in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements contained in this press release other than statements of historical fact, including, without limitation, statements regarding the Company’s business strategy and plans, capabilities of the Company’s project portfolio and achievement of operational objectives, market opportunity, utility demand and potential growth, discussions with commercial counterparties and financing sources, pricing trends for materials, progress of Company projects, including anticipated timing of related approvals and project completion and anticipated production delays, the Company’s future financial results, expected impact from various regulatory developments and anticipated trade sanctions, expectations regarding wind production, electricity prices and windfall taxes, and Revenues and Income and Adjusted EBITDA guidance, the expected timing of completion of our ongoing projects, and the Company’s anticipated cash requirements and financing plans , are forward-looking statements. The words “may,” “might,” “will,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “target,” “seek,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “continue,” “contemplate,” “possible,” “forecasts,” “aims” or the negative of these terms and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, though not all forward-looking statements use these words or expressions.

    These statements are neither promises nor guarantees, but involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, the following: our ability to site suitable land for, and otherwise source, renewable energy projects and to successfully develop and convert them into Operational Projects; availability of, and access to, interconnection facilities and transmission systems; our ability to obtain and maintain governmental and other regulatory approvals and permits, including environmental approvals and permits; construction delays, operational delays and supply chain disruptions leading to increased cost of materials required for the construction of our projects, as well as cost overruns and delays related to disputes with contractors; disruptions in trade caused by political, social or economic instability in regions where our components and materials are made; our suppliers’ ability and willingness to perform both existing and future obligations; competition from traditional and renewable energy companies in developing renewable energy projects; potential slowed demand for renewable energy projects and our ability to enter into new offtake contracts on acceptable terms and prices as current offtake contracts expire; offtakers’ ability to terminate contracts or seek other remedies resulting from failure of our projects to meet development, operational or performance benchmarks; exposure to market prices in some of our offtake contracts; various technical and operational challenges leading to unplanned outages, reduced output, interconnection or termination issues; the dependence of our production and revenue on suitable meteorological and environmental conditions, and our ability to accurately predict such conditions; our ability to enforce warranties provided by our counterparties in the event that our projects do not perform as expected; government curtailment, energy price caps and other government actions that restrict or reduce the profitability of renewable energy production; electricity price volatility, unusual weather conditions (including the effects of climate change, could adversely affect wind and solar conditions), catastrophic weather-related or other damage to facilities, unscheduled generation outages, maintenance or repairs, unanticipated changes to availability due to higher demand, shortages, transportation problems or other developments, environmental incidents, or electric transmission system constraints and the possibility that we may not have adequate insurance to cover losses as a result of such hazards; our dependence on certain operational projects for a substantial portion of our cash flows; our ability to continue to grow our portfolio of projects through successful acquisitions; changes and advances in technology that impair or eliminate the competitive advantage of our projects or upsets the expectations underlying investments in our technologies; our ability to effectively anticipate and manage cost inflation, interest rate risk, currency exchange fluctuations and other macroeconomic conditions that impact our business; our ability to retain and attract key personnel; our ability to manage legal and regulatory compliance and litigation risk across our global corporate structure; our ability to protect our business from, and manage the impact of, cyber-attacks, disruptions and security incidents, as well as acts of terrorism or war; changes to existing renewable energy industry policies and regulations that present technical, regulatory and economic barriers to renewable energy projects; the reduction, elimination or expiration of government incentives or benefits for, or regulations mandating the use of, renewable energy; our ability to effectively manage the global expansion of the scale of our business operations; our ability to perform to expectations in our new line of business involving the construction of PV systems for municipalities in Israel; our ability to effectively manage our supply chain and comply with applicable regulations with respect to international trade relations, the impact of tariffs on the cost of construction and our ability to mitigate such impact, sanctions, export controls and anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws; our ability to effectively comply with Environmental Health and Safety and other laws and regulations and receive and maintain all necessary licenses, permits and authorizations; our performance of various obligations under the terms of our indebtedness (and the indebtedness of our subsidiaries that we guarantee) and our ability to continue to secure project financing on attractive terms for our projects; limitations on our management rights and operational flexibility due to our use of tax equity arrangements; potential claims and disagreements with partners, investors and other counterparties that could reduce our right to cash flows generated by our projects; our ability to comply with increasingly complex tax laws of various jurisdictions in which we currently operate as well as the tax laws in jurisdictions in which we intend to operate in the future; the unknown effect of the dual listing of our ordinary shares on the price of our ordinary shares; various risks related to our incorporation and location in Israel, including the ongoing war in Israel, where our headquarters and some of our wind energy and solar energy projects are located; the costs and requirements of being a public company, including the diversion of management’s attention with respect to such requirements; certain provisions in our Articles of Association and certain applicable regulations that may delay or prevent a change of control; and other risk factors set forth in the section titled “Risk factors” in our Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), as may be updated in our other documents filed with or furnished to the SEC.

    These statements reflect management’s current expectations regarding future events and operating performance and speak only as of the date of this press release. You should not put undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that future results, levels of activity, performance and events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or will occur. Except as required by applicable law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, after the date on which the statements are made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

    About Enlight

    Founded in 2008, Enlight develops, finances, constructs, owns, and operates utility-scale renewable energy projects. Enlight operates across the three largest renewable segments today: solar, wind and energy storage. A global platform, Enlight operates in the United States, Israel and 10 European countries. Enlight has been traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange since 2010 (TASE: ENLT) and completed its U.S. IPO (Nasdaq: ENLT) in 2023.

    Company Contacts

    Yonah Weisz
    Director IR
    investors@enlightenergy.co.il

    Erica Mannion or Mike Funari
    Sapphire Investor Relations, LLC
    +1 617 542 6180
    investors@enlightenergy.co.il

    Appendix 1 – Financial information

    Consolidated Statements of Income    
        For the three months ended at
    March 31
        2025   2024(*)
        USD in   USD in 
        Thousands   Thousands
             
    Revenues   109,758   90,397
    Tax benefits   20,111   3,264
    Total revenues and income   129,869   93,661
             
    Cost of sales (**)   (26,638)   (15,436)
    Depreciation and amortization   (33,789)   (25,604)
    General and administrative expenses   (11,846)   (8,859)
    Development expenses   (2,564)   (2,418)
    Total operating expenses   (74,837)   (52,317)
    Gains from projects disposals   97,262   27
    Other income (expenses), net   (1,105)   1,517
    Operating profit   151,189   42,888
             
    Finance income   6,695   8,065
    Finance expenses   (30,203)   (19,493)
    Total finance expenses, net   (23,508)   (11,428)
             
    Profit before tax and equity loss   127,681   31,460
    Share of losses of equity accounted investees   (1,227)   (144)
    Profit before income taxes   126,454   31,316
    Taxes on income   (24,651)   (6,831)
    Profit for the period   101,803   24,485
             
    Profit for the period attributed to:        
    Owners of the Company   94,458   16,763
    Non-controlling interests   7,345   7,722
        101,803   24,485
    Earnings per ordinary share (in USD) with a par value of        
    NIS 0.1, attributable to owners of the parent Company:        
    Basic earnings per share   0.80   0.14
    Diluted earnings per share   0.75   0.14
    Weighted average of share capital used in the        
    calculation of earnings:        
    Basic per share   118,783,541   117,963,310
    Diluted per share   125,316,177   122,889,909
             

    (*) The Consolidated Statements of Income have been adjusted to present comparable information for the previous period. For additional details please see Appendix 8.
    (**) Excluding depreciation and amortization.

    Consolidated Statements of Financial Position as of        
             
        March 31   December 31
        2025   2024
        USD in   USD in
        Thousands   Thousands
    Assets        
             
    Current assets        
    Cash and cash equivalents   449,530   387,427
    Restricted cash   82,692   87,539
    Trade receivables   73,125   50,692
    Other receivables   71,475   99,651
    Other financial assets   405   975
    Assets of disposal groups classified as held for sale   –   81,661
    Total current assets   677,227   707,945
             
    Non-current assets        
    Restricted cash   59,964   60,802
    Other long-term receivables   62,092   61,045
    Deferred costs in respect of projects   392,119   357,358
    Deferred borrowing costs   61   276
    Loans to investee entities   32,329   18,112
    Investments in equity accounted investees   49,303   –
    Fixed assets, net   3,961,021   3,699,192
    Intangible assets, net   293,035   291,442
    Deferred taxes assets   8,023   10,744
    Right-of-use asset, net   210,739   210,941
    Financial assets at fair value through profit or loss   74,555   69,216
    Other financial assets   63,903   59,812
    Total non-current assets   5,207,144   4,838,940
             
    Total assets   5,884,371   5,546,885
             
    Consolidated Statements of Financial Position as of (Cont.)        
             
        March 31   December 31
        2025   2024
        USD in   USD in
        Thousands   Thousands
    Liabilities and equity        
             
    Current liabilities        
    Credit and current maturities of loans from banks and other financial institutions   207,662   212,246
    Trade payables   167,765   161,991
    Other payables   101,928   107,825
    Current maturities of debentures   23,049   44,962
    Current maturities of lease liability   10,192   10,240
    Other financial liabilities   5,777   8,141
    Liabilities of disposal groups classified as held for sale   –   46,635
    Total current liabilities   516,373   592,040
             
    Non-current liabilities        
    Debentures   549,517   433,994
    Other financial liabilities   118,891   107,865
    Convertible debentures   232,536   133,056
    Loans from banks and other financial institutions   2,024,315   1,996,137
    Loans from non-controlling interests   79,081   75,598
    Financial liabilities through profit or loss   25,985   25,844
    Deferred taxes liabilities   62,310   41,792
    Employee benefits   1,092   1,215
    Lease liability   209,958   211,941
    Deferred income related to tax equity   387,943   403,384
    Asset retirement obligation   85,141   83,085
    Total non-current liabilities   3,776,769   3,513,911
             
    Total liabilities   4,293,142   4,105,951
             
    Equity        
    Ordinary share capital   3,323   3,308
    Share premium   1,028,528   1,028,532
    Capital reserves   49,890   25,273
    Proceeds on account of convertible options   25,083   15,494
    Accumulated profit   202,377   107,919
    Equity attributable to shareholders of the Company   1,309,201   1,180,526
    Non-controlling interests   282,028   260,408
    Total equity   1,591,229   1,440,934
    Total liabilities and equity   5,884,371   5,546,885
             
    Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows        
             
        For the three months ended
    at March 31
        2025   2024
        USD in   USD in
        Thousands   Thousands
             
    Cash flows for operating activities        
    Profit for the period   101,803   24,485
             
    Income and expenses not associated with cash flows:        
    Depreciation and amortization   33,789   25,604
    Finance expenses, net   22,388   11,486
    Share-based compensation   1,710   3,117
    Taxes on income   24,651   6,831
    Tax benefits   (20,111)   (3,264)
    Other income (expenses), net   1,105   (134)
    Company’s share in losses of investee partnerships   1,227   144
    Gains from projects disposals   (97,262)   (27)
        (32,503)   43,757
             
    Changes in assets and liabilities items:        
    Change in other receivables   (856)   (2,142)
    Change in trade receivables   (20,376)   (16,909)
    Change in other payables   8,604   (539)
    Change in trade payables   7,802   71
        (4,826)   (19,519)
             
    Interest receipts   2,512   2,928
    Interest paid   (22,298)   (15,624)
    Income Tax paid   (1,075)   (798)
             
    Net cash from operating activities   43,613   35,229
             
    Cash flows for investing activities        
    Sale (Acquisition) of consolidated entities, net   36,223   (1,388)
    Changes in restricted cash and bank deposits, net   8,176   (4,988)
    Purchase, development, and construction in respect of projects   (255,862)   (199,733)
    Loans provided and Investment in investees   (7,430)   (11,284)
    Repayments of loans from investees   30,815   –
    Payments on account of acquisition of consolidated entity   (7,447)   (10,851)
    Purchase of financial assets measured at fair value through profit or loss, net   (3,040)   (8,409)
    Net cash used in investing activities   (198,565)   (236,653)
             
    Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Cont.)      
        For the three months ended at March 31
        2025   2024
        USD in   USD in
        Thousands   Thousands
             
    Cash flows from financing activities        
    Receipt of loans from banks and other financial institutions   143,578   71,371
    Repayment of loans from banks and other financial institutions   (108,922)   (10,448)
    Issuance of debentures   125,838   –
    Issuance of convertible debentures   114,685   –
    Repayment of debentures   (21,994)   (1,284)
    Dividends and distributions by subsidiaries to non-controlling interests   –   (108)
    Deferred borrowing costs   (35,199)   (2,682)
    Repayment of loans from non-controlling interests   –   (955)
    Increase in holding rights of consolidated entity   (1,392)   –
    Exercise of share options   11   –
    Repayment of lease liability   (4,058)   (3,671)
    Proceeds from investment in entities by non-controlling interest   7,732   152
             
    Net cash from financing activities   220,279   52,375
             
    Increase (Decrease) in cash and cash equivalents   65,327   (149,049)
             
    Balance of cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period   387,427   403,805
             
    Effect of exchange rate fluctuations on cash and cash equivalents   (3,224)   (4,905)
             
    Cash and cash equivalents at end of period   449,530   249,851
             


    Information related to Segmental Reporting

      For the three months ended at March 31, 2025
      MENA(**)   Europe(**)  

    USA

      Total reportable segments   Others   Total
      USD in thousands
    Revenues 42,867   51,384   14,678   108,929   829   109,758
    Tax benefits –   –   20,111   20,111   –   20,111
    Total revenues and income 42,867   51,384   34,789   129,040   829   129,869
                           
    Segment adjusted EBITDA 68,017   44,663   30,549   143,229   81   143,310
         
    Reconciliations of unallocated amounts:    
    Headquarter costs (*)   (11,701)
    Intersegment profit   106
    Gains from projects disposals   54,973
    Depreciation and amortization and share-based compensation   (35,499)
    Operating profit   151,189
    Finance income   6,695
    Finance expenses   (30,203)
    Share in the losses of equity accounted investees   (1,227)
    Profit before income taxes   126,454
         

    (*) Including general and administrative and development expenses (excluding depreciation and amortization and share based compensation).

    (**) Due to the Company’s organizational restructuring, the Chief Operation Decision Maker (CODM) now reviews the group’s results by segmenting them into three business units: MENA (Middle East and North Africa), Europe, and the US. Consequently, the Central/Eastern Europe and Western Europe segments have been consolidated into the “Europe” segment, the Israel segment has been incorporated into the MENA segment, and the Management and Construction segment has been excluded. The comparative figures for the three months ended March 31, 2024, have been updated accordingly.

    Information related to Segmental Reporting

      For the three months ended at March 31, 2024
      MENA   Europe  

    USA

      Total reportable segments   Others   Total
      USD in thousands
    Revenues 28,474   59,160   1,231   88,865   1,532   90,397
    Tax benefits –   –   3,264   3,264   –   3,264
    Total revenues and income 28,474   59,160   4,495   92,129   1,532   93,661
                           
    Segment adjusted EBITDA 24,528   50,707   3,122   78,357   668   79,025
         
    Reconciliations of unallocated amounts:    
    Headquarter costs (*)   (7,606)
    Intersegment profit   190
    Depreciation and amortization and share-based compensation   (28,721)
    Operating profit   42,888
    Finance income   8,065
    Finance expenses   (19,493)
    Share in the losses of equity accounted investees   (144)
    Profit before income taxes   31,316
         

    (*) Including general and administrative and development expenses (excluding depreciation and amortization and share based compensation).

    Appendix 2 – Reconciliations between Net Income to Adjusted EBITDA

     
    ($ thousands)   For the three months ended at
        March 31, 2025   March 31, 2024
    Net Income   101,803   24,485
    Depreciation and amortization   33,789   25,604
    Share based compensation   1,710   3,117
    Finance income   (6,695)   (8,065)
    Finance expenses   30,203   19,493
    Gains from projects disposals (*)   (54,973)   –
    Share of losses of equity accounted investees   1,227   144
    Taxes on income   24,651   6,831
    Adjusted EBITDA   131,715   71,609
             
    * Profit from revaluation linked to partial sale of asset.
       

    Appendix 3 – Debentures Covenants

    Debentures Covenants

    As of March 31, 2025, the Company was in compliance with all of its financial covenants under the indenture for the Series C, D, F, G and H Debentures, based on having achieved the following in its consolidated financial results:

    Minimum equity

    The company’s equity shall be maintained at no less than NIS 375 million so long as debentures F remain outstanding, NIS 1,250 million so long as debentures C and D remain outstanding, and USD 600 million so long as debentures G and H remain outstanding.

    As of March 31, 2025, the company’s equity amounted to NIS 5,916 million (USD 1,591 million).

    Net financial debt to net CAP

    The ratio of standalone net financial debt to net CAP shall not exceed 70% for two consecutive financial periods so long as debentures F remain outstanding and shall not exceed 65% for two consecutive financial periods so long as debentures C, D, G and H remain outstanding.

    As of March 31, 2025, the net financial debt to net CAP ratio, as defined above, stands at 36%.

    Net financial debt to EBITDA

    So long as debentures F remain outstanding, standalone financial debt shall not exceed NIS 10 million, and the consolidated financial debt to EBITDA ratio shall not exceed 18 for more than two consecutive financial periods.

    For as long as debentures C and D remain outstanding, the consolidated financial debt to EBITDA ratio shall not exceed 15 for more than two consecutive financial periods.

    For as long as debentures G and H remain outstanding, the consolidated financial debt to EBITDA ratio shall not exceed 17 for more than two consecutive financial periods.

    As of March 31, 2025, the net financial debt to EBITDA ratio, as defined above, stands at 8.

    Equity to balance sheet

    The standalone equity to total balance sheet ratio shall be maintained at no less than 20% ,25% and 28%, respectively, for two consecutive financial periods for as long as debentures F, debentures C and D and debentures G and H remain outstanding.

    As of March 31, 2025, the equity to balance sheet ratio, as defined above, stands at 55%.

    An infographic accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/94346603-d361-4e84-aabc-62db3e22c10c

    The MIL Network –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: National Lottery funding set to future-proof Norwich’s historic parks

    Source: City of Norwich

    Norwich’s most historic parks and open spaces are set to benefit from a significant £216,000 grant from The National Lottery Heritage Fund.

    The funding, made possible thanks to National Lottery players, will support a comprehensive project aimed at surveying and analysing 22 of the city’s most cherished parks and green spaces, paving the way for long-term investment and conservation efforts.

    Parks included boast rich histories and significant heritage designations, such as Grade II* Eaton Park and Waterloo Park, and the country’s first non-conformist cemetery, Rosary Cemetery.

    Norwich City Council, who is responsible for managing the city’s parks, will also contribute a further £10,000 to the project which will explore:

    • long-term protection and conversation,
    • opportunities for restoration and enhanced visitor experiences,
    • community views on the parks, working closely with volunteer groups who support them.

    By proposing a strategic green space network, the initiative will emphasise heritage, biodiversity, and community involvement, aligning with Norwich’s ambition to become a ‘Nature City’.

    Surveys will cover both the obvious and hidden heritage of each site, focusing on restoration and reinterpretation to ensure sustainability and visitor enjoyment

    The project, which will take place over the next 12 months, will also include feasibility studies, appraisals, and community consultations to define achievable goals and necessary steps for long-term success.

    Councillor Emma Hampton, Norwich City Council’s cabinet member for parks and open spaces, said: “We know how much the city’s parks mean to our residents, and are committed to protecting their heritage and maximising their potential.

    “This investment will allow us to understand the full potential of these spaces and ensure their long-term future for the enjoyment of residents and visitors alike.”

    The grant marks a continuation of Norwich’s successful history with The National Lottery Heritage Fund, following significant funding for the restoration of Waterloo Park and Eaton Park 25 years ago. This new project aims to revisit and secure the future of all historic parks in the city.

    The full list of parks included:

    • Waterloo Park (II*)
    • Eaton Park (II*)
    • Earlham Park (II)
    • Mile Cross Gardens (II)
    • Wensum Park (II)
    • Heigham Park (II)
    • Chapelfield Gardens (II)
    • Ketts Heights (within a Conservation Area)
    • Mousehold Heath (including Britannia Barracks Park) (within a Conservation Area)
    • Rosary Cemetery (II*)
    • Earlham Cemetery (II)
    • James Stuart Gardens (within a Conservation Area)
    • Riverside Walk (within a Conservation Area and several adjacent listed buildings)
    • Pilling Park (within a Conservation Area)

    ENDS

    About The National Lottery Heritage Fund

    Our vision is for heritage to be valued, cared for and sustained for everyone, now and in the future. That’s why as the largest funder for the UK’s heritage we are dedicated to supporting projects that connect people and communities to heritage, as set out in our strategic plan, Heritage 2033. Heritage can be anything from the past that people value and want to pass on to future generations. We believe in the power of heritage to ignite the imagination, offer joy and inspiration, and to build pride in place and connection to the past. 

    Over the next 10 years, we aim to invest £3.6billion raised for good causes by National Lottery players to make a decisive difference for people, places and communities.

    www.heritagefund.org.uk

    Follow @HeritageFundUK on X/Twitter, Facebook and Instagram and use #NationalLottery #HeritageFund

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-Evening Report: As Warren Buffett prepares to retire, does his investing philosophy have a future?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angel Zhong, Professor of Finance, RMIT University

    Warren Buffett, the 94-year-old investing legend and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, has announced plans to step down at the end of this year.

    His departure will mark the end of an era for value investing, an investment approach built on buying quality companies at reasonable prices and holding them for the long term.

    Buffett’s approach transformed Berkshire Hathaway from a small textile business in the 1960s into a giant conglomerate now worth more than US$1.1 trillion (A$1.7 trillion).

    He built his fortune backing US industry in energy and insurance and American brands, including big stakes in household names such as Coca-Cola, American Express and Apple.

    At Berkshire’s annual meeting at the weekend, held in an arena with thousands of devoted investors, Buffett named Greg Abel as his successor.

    Abel, 62, is currently chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway Energy, as well as vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway’s vast non-insurance operations.

    He’s known for his disciplined, no-nonsense management style. The company’s board has now voted unanimously to approve the move.

    This changing of the guard comes at a pivotal moment. Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency has already delivered significant economic policy shifts.

    Meanwhile, questions about US economic dominance grow louder against China’s continued rise.

    The ‘Oracle of Omaha’

    Few names command as much respect in the world of finance as Warren Buffett. Born in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1930, Buffett displayed an early genius for numbers and investing. He bought his first stock at age 11.

    His investment philosophy – buying undervalued companies with strong fundamentals – would later earn him the nickname the “Oracle of Omaha” for his uncanny ability to predict market trends and identify winning investments years before others did.

    Value investing

    Buffett drew his investment approach from the value investment principles of British-born US economist Benjamin Graham.

    He preferred businesses with lasting advantages and a clear value proposition. Some of his key investments included insurance company GEICO, railroad company BNSF, and more recently Chinese electric vehicle maker BYD.

    He avoided speculative bubbles (such as the dotcom bubble of the late 1990s and, more recently, cryptocurrencies) and preached long-term patience to investors. As he famously wrote in a 1988 letter to shareholders:

    In fact, when we own portions of outstanding businesses with outstanding managements, our favorite holding period is forever.

    Buffett’s guidance helped Berkshire navigate many economic booms and recessions. Over his six decades at the helm, the company delivered impressive compounded annual returns of almost 20% – virtually double those of the S&P 500 index.

    Beyond financial success, Buffett championed ethical business practices and pledged to donate more than 99% of his wealth through the Giving Pledge, which he cofounded with Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates.




    Read more:
    How Warren Buffett’s enormous charitable gifts reflect the ‘inner scorecard’ that has guided him up to the billionaire’s planned retirement


    Challenges to Buffett’s strategy in today’s world

    In an op-ed for the New York Times in 2008, Buffett famously shared the maxim that guides his investment decisions:

    Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful.

    But his strategy thrived in an era of increasing globalisation, free trade, and US economic supremacy. The world has shifted since Buffett’s heyday.

    There are concerns about the recent underperformance of value investing. Technology companies now dominate older industries.

    This raises questions about whether those who succeed Buffett can spot the next major industry disruptors.

    America first?

    Trump’s return as US president heralds major changes in economic policy. Trade restrictions might hurt some of Berkshire’s international investments. However, these same policies might benefit Buffett’s US-focused investments.

    The idea of US economic superiority also faces new questions. China may overtake the US economy in the 2030s. The US share of global economic output has fallen from about 22% in 1980 to about 15% today.

    Buffett’s “never bet against America” mantra faces new scrutiny.

    Warren Buffett discusses trade deficits and protectionism on May 3.

    The challenges for Buffett’s successor

    Abel inherits a company with about US$348 billion (A$539 billion) in cash. That’s a serious amount of capital to deploy wisely amid global economic uncertainty and Trump’s trade war.

    Abel will likely maintain Berkshire’s core values while updating its approach. His challenges include:

    1. Maintaining the “Buffett premium”: Abel lacks Buffett’s cult-like following among investors, which may gradually erode the additional value the market assigns to Berkshire due to Buffett’s leadership.

      Without Buffett’s reputation, Abel may face increased pressure to effectively deploy Berkshire’s massive cash pile in a still-expensive stock market, where valuations are high and finding bargains is harder than ever.

    2. Technological adaptation: while Berkshire has increased its technology investments over the years (including positions in Apple and Amazon), balancing its legacy holdings (such as Coca-Cola and railroads) with growth sectors (AI, renewables) remains challenging.

    3. Environmental concerns: Berkshire Hathaway’s heavy reliance on coal and gas-fired utilities has drawn growing criticism as investors and regulators demand cleaner energy solutions.

    4. Replicating the “golden touch”: Buffett’s genius wasn’t just in picking stocks. It was also in capital allocation, deal-making, and crisis management (for example, buying into Goldman Sachs during the global financial crisis). Can Abel replicate that?

    After Buffett

    Buffett’s principles – patience, intrinsic value and betting on America – are timeless. But the world has moved on. His successor must navigate geopolitical risks, technological disruption, and the rise of passive investing while preserving Berkshire’s unique culture.

    The post-Buffett era represents more than just a leadership change. It’s a test of whether Buffett’s principles can survive in an increasingly short-term, technology-dominated, and geopolitically complex world.

    Abel’s leadership will reveal the enduring power – or limitations – of Buffett’s philosophy.

    Angel Zhong 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. As Warren Buffett prepares to retire, does his investing philosophy have a future? – https://theconversation.com/as-warren-buffett-prepares-to-retire-does-his-investing-philosophy-have-a-future-255867

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: International Petroleum Corporation Announces First Quarter 2025 Financial and Operational Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TORONTO, May 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — William Lundin, IPC’s President and Chief Executive Officer, comments: “We are pleased to announce another strong quarter of operational and financial performance for Q1 2025. IPC achieved an average net daily production during the quarter of 44,400 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd). Our results during the quarter were in line with the 2025 guidance announced at our Capital Markets Day in February as we continue to execute according to plan across our operations in Canada, Malaysia and France. Notably, the transformational Blackrod Phase 1 development project in Canada has progressed substantially during the quarter and forecast first oil is maintained with the original project sanction guidance for late 2026. We also continued with purchases of IPC common shares under the normal course issuer bid, having completed approximately 60% of the current 2024/2025 program between December 2024 to March 2025.”

    Q1 2025 Business Highlights

    • Average net production of approximately 44,400 boepd for the first quarter of 2025, within the guidance range for the period (52% heavy crude oil, 15% light and medium crude oil and 33% natural gas).(1)
    • Continued progressing Phase 1 development activity as well as future phase resource maturation works at the Blackrod asset.
    • At Onion Lake Thermal, all four planned production infill wells and the final Pad L well pair have been successfully drilled.
    • 3.9 million IPC common shares purchased and cancelled during Q1 2025 and continuing with target to complete the full 2024/2025 NCIB this year.

    Q1 2025 Financial Highlights

    • Operating costs per boe of USD 17.3 for Q1 2025, in line with guidance.(3)
    • Operating cash flow (OCF) generation of MUSD 75 for Q1 2025, in line with guidance.(3)
    • Capital and decommissioning expenditures of MUSD 99 for Q1 2025, in line with guidance.
    • Free cash flow (FCF) generation for Q1 2025 amounted to MUSD -43 (MUSD 37 pre-Blackrod capital expenditure).(3)
    • Gross cash of MUSD 140 and net debt of MUSD 314 as at March 31, 2025.(3)
    • Net result of MUSD 16 for Q1 2025.

    Reserves and Resources

    • Total 2P reserves as at December 31, 2024 of 493 MMboe, with a reserve life index (RLI) of 31 years.(1)(2)
    • Contingent resources (best estimate, unrisked) as at December 31, 2024 of 1,107 MMboe.(1)(2)
    • 2P reserves net asset value (NAV) as at December 31, 2024 of MUSD 3,083 (10% discount rate).(1)(2)

    2025 Annual Guidance

    • Full year 2025 average net production guidance range forecast maintained at 43,000 to 45,000 boepd.(1)
    • Full year 2025 operating costs guidance range forecast maintained at USD 18 to 19 per boe.(3)
    • Full year 2025 OCF revised guidance estimated at between MUSD 240 and 270 (assuming Brent USD 60 to 75 per barrel for the remainder of 2025) from previous guidance of between MUSD 210 and 280 (assuming Brent USD 65 to 85 per barrel).(3)(4)
    • Full year 2025 capital and decommissioning expenditures guidance forecast maintained at MUSD 320.
    • Full year 2025 FCF revised guidance estimated at between MUSD -135 and -110 (assuming Brent USD 60 to 75 per barrel for the remainder of 2025) from previous guidance of between MUSD -150 and -80 (assuming Brent USD 65 to 85 per barrel), after taking into account MUSD 230 of forecast full year 2025 capital expenditures relating to the Blackrod asset.(3)(4)
      Three months ended March 31
    USD Thousands 2025 2024
    Revenue 178,492   206,419  
    Gross profit 44,149   55,184  
    Net result 16,231   33,719  
    Operating cash flow(3) 74,790   89,301  
    Free cash flow(3) (43,172)   (43,311)  
    EBITDA(3) 70,946   87,020  
    Net cash/(debt)(3) (314,255)   (60,572)  
             

    During the first quarter of 2025, oil prices were relatively stable, with Brent prices averaging just below USD 76 per barrel. Following the quarter, commodity prices pulled back with spot Brent rates falling to USD 60 per barrel in April 2025. The physical crude market remained tight throughout the first quarter, prompting OPEC and the OPEC+ group to increase supply ahead of expectations. The timing of the supply increases coincided with the United States proposing harsh tariffs to countries deemed in a trade surplus of US goods. These two events have impacted future crude supply and demand outlooks, in turn weighing on spot and future oil benchmark prices. Despite the poor market sentiment, global inventories remain below the 5-year average, high geopolitical tensions persist, non-OPEC 2025 oil production (namely, in the US) is unlikely to grow at current prices, and US Federal Reserve Bank rate cuts are likely to occur in the near future. IPC prudently supplemented downside protection measures at the beginning of the first quarter of 2025 through financial swap hedging arrangements which in total represent nearly 40% of our forecast 2025 oil production at around USD 76 and USD 71 per barrel for Dated Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI), respectively, for the remainder of 2025.

    In Canada, WTI to Western Canadian Select (WCS) crude price differentials during the first quarter of 2025 averaged just under USD 13 per barrel, with spot differentials decreasing to around USD 9 per barrel in April 2025. The Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) petroleum producers have greatly benefited from the TMX pipeline expansion with differentials tightening to levels not seen since 2020. There are currently no tariffs on Canadian crude exports to the United States, which remain covered by the US Mexico Canada free trade agreement. IPC has hedged the WTI/WCS differential for approximately 50% of our forecast 2025 Canadian oil production at USD 14 per barrel for 2025.

    Natural gas markets in Canada for the first quarter of 2025 remained weak, given the softer than average winter weather conditions and high natural gas storage levels. The average AECO gas price was CAD 2.1 per Mcf for the first quarter of 2025. The forward strip implies improved pricing for Canadian gas benchmark prices, driven by the pending startup of the West Coast LNG Canada project later this year. Approximately 50% of our net long exposure is hedged at CAD 2.4 per Mcf to end October 2025, dropping to around 15% for November and December at CAD 2.6 per mcf.

    First Quarter 2025 Highlights and Full Year 2025 Guidance

    During the first quarter of 2025, our portfolio delivered average net production of 44,400 boepd, in line with guidance. Operational performance from our producing assets was strong to start the year as high facility and well uptimes were achieved. Drilling activity commenced in the first quarter of 2025 at Onion Lake Thermal, which aims to sustain production levels at the asset for 2025. In Malaysia, drilling and well maintenance works are planned to start in the second quarter of 2025, in line with plan. We maintain the full year 2025 average net production guidance range of 43,000 to 45,000 boepd.(1)

    Our operating costs per boe for the first quarter of 2025 was USD 17.3, in line with guidance. Full year 2025 operating expenditure guidance of USD 18.0 to 19.0 per boe remains unchanged.(3)

    Operating cash flow (OCF) generation for the first quarter of 2025 was MUSD 75. Full year 2025 OCF guidance is tightened to MUSD 240 to 270 (assuming Brent USD 60 to 75 per barrel for the remainder of 2025).(3)(4)

    Capital and decommissioning expenditure for the first quarter of 2025 was MUSD 99 in line with guidance. Full year 2025 capital and decommissioning expenditure of MUSD 320 is maintained.

    Free cash flow (FCF) generation was MUSD -43 (MUSD 37 pre-Blackrod capital expenditure) during the first quarter of 2025. Full year 2025 FCF guidance is tightened to MUSD -135 to -110 (assuming Brent USD 60 to 75 per barrel for the remainder of 2025) after taking into account MUSD 320 of forecast full year 2025 capital expenditures (including MUSD 230 relating to the Blackrod asset).(3)(4)

    As at March 31, 2025, IPC’s net debt position was MUSD 314, from a net debt position of MUSD 209 as at December 31, 2024, mainly driven by the funding of forecast capital expenditures and the continuing share repurchase program (NCIB). Gross cash on the balance sheet as at March 31, 2025 amounts to MUSD 140 and IPC has access to an undrawn Canadian credit facility of greater than 130 MUSD. The access to liquidity supports IPC to follow through on its key strategic objectives of enhancing stakeholder value through organic growth, stakeholder returns, and pursuing value adding M&A.(3)

    Blackrod

    During the first quarter of 2025, IPC continued to advance the Phase 1 development of the Blackrod asset. Growth capital expenditure to first oil is maintained at MUSD 850. First oil of the Phase 1 development is estimated to be in late 2026, with forecast net production of 30,000 boepd by 2028. IPC forecasts capital expenditure in 2025 at the Blackrod asset of MUSD 230, of which MUSD 77 was invested in the Phase 1 development project during Q1 2025. Since the transformational organic growth project was sanctioned in early 2023, MUSD 669, or approximately 80% of the total multi-year project capital budget, has been incurred.(1)

    Project activities for the multi-year Blackrod Phase 1 development have progressed according to plan. Engineering, procurement and fabrication is substantially complete with greater than 90% of all facility modules delivered to site. Equipment installation, piping inter-connects, electrical and instrumentation are the key areas of focus for construction at the Central Processing Facility (CPF) and well pad facilities.

    Resource maturation drilling for future phase expansion considerations took place during Q1 2025. Commercial operational readiness planning has ramped up in line with our progressive turnover strategy to ensure a seamless transition from build to start-up. IPC intends to fund the remaining Blackrod capital expenditure with forecast cash flow generated by its operations, cash on hand and drawing under the existing Canadian credit facility if needed.(3)

    Stakeholder Returns: Normal Course Issuer Bid

    In Q4 2024, IPC announced the renewal of the NCIB, with the ability to repurchase up to approximately 7.5 million common shares over the period of December 5, 2024 to December 4, 2025. Under the 2024/2025 NCIB, IPC repurchased and cancelled approximately 0.8 million common shares in December 2024, 3.7 million common shares during Q1 2025, and a further 0.2 million common shares purchased under other exemptions in Canada. The average price of common shares purchased under the 2024/2025 NCIB during Q1 2025 was SEK 146 / CAD 20 per share.

    As at March 31, 2025, IPC had a total of 115,176,514 common shares issued and outstanding and IPC held no common shares in treasury. As at April 30, 2025, IPC had a total of 114,248,119 common shares issued and outstanding and IPC held no common shares in treasury.

    Notwithstanding the final major capital investment year at Blackrod in 2025, IPC had purchased and cancelled 73% of the maximum 7.5 million common shares allowed under the 2024/2025 NCIB by the end of April 2025 and intends to purchase and cancel the remaining 2.0 million common shares under that program in 2025. This would result in the cancellation of 6.2% of common shares outstanding as at the beginning of December 2024. IPC continues to believe that reducing the number of shares outstanding in combination with investing in long-life production growth at the Blackrod project will prove to be a winning formula for our stakeholders.

    Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Performance

    During the first quarter of 2025, IPC recorded no material safety or environmental incidents.

    As previously announced, IPC targets a reduction of our net GHG emissions intensity by the end of 2025 to 50% of IPC’s 2019 baseline and IPC remains on track to achieve this reduction. IPC has also made a commitment to maintain 2025 levels of 20 kg CO2/boe through to the end of 2028.(5)

    Notes:

      (1) See “Supplemental Information regarding Product Types” in “Reserves and Resources Advisory” below. See also the annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2024 (AIF) available on IPC’s website at www.international-petroleum.com and under IPC’s profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
      (2) See “Reserves and Resources Advisory“ below. Further information with respect to IPC’s reserves, contingent resources and estimates of future net revenue, including assumptions relating to the calculation of net present value (NPV), are described in the AIF. NAV is calculated as NPV less net debt of USD 209 million as at December 31, 2024.
      (3) Non-IFRS measures, see “Non-IFRS Measures” below and in the MD&A.
      (4) OCF and FCF forecasts at Brent USD 60 and 70 per barrel assume Brent to WTI differential of USD 3 and 5 per barrel, respectively, and WTI to WCS differential of USD 10 and 15 per barrel, respectively, for the remainder of 2025. OCF and FCF forecasts assume gas price on average of CAD 2.25 per Mcf for the remainder of 2025.
      (5) Emissions intensity is the ratio between oil and gas production and the associated carbon emissions, and net emissions intensity reflects gross emissions less operational emission reductions and carbon offsets.
         

    International Petroleum Corp. (IPC) is an international oil and gas exploration and production company with a high quality portfolio of assets located in Canada, Malaysia and France, providing a solid foundation for organic and inorganic growth. IPC is a member of the Lundin Group of Companies. IPC is incorporated in Canada and IPC’s shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and the Nasdaq Stockholm exchange under the symbol “IPCO”.

    For further information, please contact:

    Rebecca Gordon
    SVP Corporate Planning and Investor Relations
    rebecca.gordon@international-petroleum.com
    Tel: +41 22 595 10 50
    Or Robert Eriksson
    Media Manager
    reriksson@rive6.ch
    Tel: +46 701 11 26 15
         

    This information is information that International Petroleum Corporation is required to make public pursuant to the EU Market Abuse Regulation and the Securities Markets Act. The information was submitted for publication, through the contact persons set out above, at 07:30 CEST on May 6, 2025. The Corporation’s unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements (Financial Statements) and management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A) for the three months ended March 31, 2025 have been filed on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca) and are also available on the Corporation’s website (www.international-petroleum.com).

    Forward-Looking Statements
    This press release contains statements and information which constitute “forward-looking statements” or “forward-looking information” (within the meaning of applicable securities legislation). Such statements and information (together, “forward-looking statements”) relate to future events, including the Corporation’s future performance, business prospects or opportunities. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release, unless otherwise indicated. IPC does not intend, and does not assume any obligation, to update these forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable laws.

    All statements other than statements of historical fact may be forward-looking statements. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, forecasts, guidance, budgets, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not always, using words or phrases such as “seek”, “anticipate”, “plan”, “continue”, “estimate”, “expect”, “may”, “will”, “project”, “forecast”, “predict”, “potential”, “targeting”, “intend”, “could”, “might”, “should”, “believe”, “budget” and similar expressions) are not statements of historical fact and may be “forward-looking statements”.

    Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to:

    • 2025 production ranges (including total daily average production), production composition, cash flows, operating costs and capital and decommissioning expenditure estimates;
    • Estimates of future production, cash flows, operating costs and capital expenditures that are based on IPC’s current business plans and assumptions regarding the business environment, which are subject to change;
    • IPC’s financial and operational flexibility to navigate the Corporation through periods of volatile commodity prices;
    • The ability to fully fund future expenditures from cash flows and current borrowing capacity;
    • IPC’s intention and ability to continue to implement its strategies to build long-term shareholder value;
    • The ability of IPC’s portfolio of assets to provide a solid foundation for organic and inorganic growth;
    • The continued facility uptime and reservoir performance in IPC’s areas of operation;
    • Development of the Blackrod project in Canada, including estimates of resource volumes, future production, timing, regulatory approvals, third party commercial arrangements, breakeven oil prices and net present values;
    • Current and future production performance, operations and development potential of the Onion Lake Thermal, Suffield, Brooks, Ferguson and Mooney operations, including the timing and success of future oil and gas drilling and optimization programs;
    • The potential improvement in the Canadian oil egress situation and IPC’s ability to benefit from any such improvements;
    • The ability to maintain current and forecast production in France and Malaysia;
    • The intention and ability of IPC to acquire further Common Shares under the NCIB, including the timing of any such purchases;
    • The return of value to IPC’s shareholders as a result of the NCIB;
    • IPC’s ability to implement its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity and climate strategies and to achieve its net GHG emissions intensity reduction targets;
    • IPC’s ability to implement projects to reduce net emissions intensity, including potential carbon capture and storage;
    • Estimates of reserves and contingent resources;
    • The ability to generate free cash flows and use that cash to repay debt;
    • IPC’s continued access to its existing credit facilities, including current financial headroom, on terms acceptable to the Corporation;
    • IPC’s ability to identify and complete future acquisitions;
    • Expectations regarding the oil and gas industry in Canada, Malaysia and France, including assumptions regarding future royalty rates, regulatory approvals, legislative changes, tariffs, and ongoing projects and their expected completion; and
    • Future drilling and other exploration and development activities.

    Statements relating to “reserves” and “contingent resources” are also deemed to be forward-looking statements, as they involve the implied assessment, based on certain estimates and assumptions, that the reserves and resources described exist in the quantities predicted or estimated and that the reserves and resources can be profitably produced in the future. Ultimate recovery of reserves or resources is based on forecasts of future results, estimates of amounts not yet determinable and assumptions of management.

    The forward-looking statements are based on certain key expectations and assumptions made by IPC, including expectations and assumptions concerning: the potential impact of tariffs implemented in 2025 by the U.S. and Canadian governments and that other than the tariffs that have been implemented, neither the U.S. nor Canada (i) increases the rate or scope of such tariffs, or imposes new tariffs, on the import of goods from one country to the other, including on oil and natural gas, and/or (ii) imposes any other form of tax, restriction or prohibition on the import or export of products from one country to the other, including on oil and natural gas; prevailing commodity prices and currency exchange rates; applicable royalty rates and tax laws; interest rates; future well production rates and reserve and contingent resource volumes; operating costs; our ability to maintain our existing credit ratings; our ability to achieve our performance targets; the timing of receipt of regulatory approvals; the performance of existing wells; the success obtained in drilling new wells; anticipated timing and results of capital expenditures; the sufficiency of budgeted capital expenditures in carrying out planned activities; the timing, location and extent of future drilling operations; the successful completion of acquisitions and dispositions and that we will be able to implement our standards, controls, procedures and policies in respect of any acquisitions and realize the expected synergies on the anticipated timeline or at all; the benefits of acquisitions; the state of the economy and the exploration and production business in the jurisdictions in which IPC operates and globally; the availability and cost of financing, labour and services; our intention to complete share repurchases under our normal course issuer bid program, including the funding of such share repurchases, existing and future market conditions, including with respect to the price of our common shares, and compliance with respect to applicable limitations under securities laws and regulations and stock exchange policies; and the ability to market crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids successfully.

    Although IPC believes that the expectations and assumptions on which such forward-looking statements are based are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on the forward-looking statements because IPC can give no assurances that they will prove to be correct. Since forward-looking statements address future events and conditions, by their very nature they involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from those currently anticipated due to a number of factors and risks.

    These include, but are not limited to: general global economic, market and business conditions; the risks associated with the oil and gas industry in general such as operational risks in development, exploration and production; delays or changes in plans with respect to exploration or development projects or capital expenditures; the uncertainty of estimates and projections relating to reserves, resources, production, revenues, costs and expenses; health, safety and environmental risks; commodity price fluctuations; interest rate and exchange rate fluctuations; marketing and transportation; loss of markets; environmental and climate-related risks; competition; innovation and cybersecurity risks related to our systems, including our costs of addressing or mitigating such risks; the ability to attract, engage and retain skilled employees; incorrect assessment of the value of acquisitions; failure to complete or realize the anticipated benefits of acquisitions or dispositions; the ability to access sufficient capital from internal and external sources; failure to obtain required regulatory and other approvals; geopolitical conflicts, including the war between Ukraine and Russia and the conflict in the Middle East, and their potential impact on, among other things, global market conditions; political or economic developments, including, without limitation, the risk that (i) one or both of the U.S. and Canadian governments increases the rate or scope of tariffs implemented in 2025, or imposes new tariffs on the import of goods from one country to the other, including on oil and natural gas, (ii) the U.S. and/or Canada imposes any other form of tax, restriction or prohibition on the import or export of products from one country to the other, including on oil and natural gas, and (iii) the tariffs imposed by the U.S. on other countries and responses thereto could have a material adverse effect on the Canadian, U.S. and global economies, and by extension the Canadian oil and natural gas industry and the Corporation; and changes in legislation, including but not limited to tax laws, royalties, environmental and abandonment regulations. Readers are cautioned that the foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive.

    Additional information on these and other factors that could affect IPC, or its operations or financial results, are included in the MD&A (See “Risk Factors”, “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information” and “Reserves and Resources Advisory”), the Corporation’s Annual Information Form (AIF) for the year ended December 31, 2024, (See “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information”, “Reserves and Resources Advisory” and “Risk Factors”) and other reports on file with applicable securities regulatory authorities, including previous financial reports, management’s discussion and analysis and material change reports, which may be accessed through the SEDAR+ website (www.sedarplus.ca) or IPC’s website (www.international-petroleum.com).

    Management of IPC approved the production, operating costs, operating cash flow, capital and decommissioning expenditures and free cash flow guidance and estimates contained herein as of the date of this press release. The purpose of these guidance and estimates is to assist readers in understanding IPC’s expected and targeted financial results, and this information may not be appropriate for other purposes.

    Estimated production and FCF generation are based on IPC’s current business plans over the periods of 2025 to 2029 and 2030 to 2034, less net debt of USD 209 million as at December 31, 2024, with assumptions based on the reports of IPC’s independent reserves evaluators, and including certain corporate adjustments relating to estimated general and administration costs and hedging, and excluding shareholder distributions and financing costs. Assumptions include average net production of approximately 57 Mboepd over the period of 2025 to 2029, average net production of approximately 63 Mboepd over the period of 2030 to 2034, average Brent oil prices of USD 75 to 95 per bbl escalating by 2% per year, and average Brent to Western Canadian Select differentials and average gas prices as estimated by IPC’s independent reserves evaluator and as further described in the AIF. IPC’s current business plans and assumptions, and the business environment, are subject to change. Actual results may differ materially from forward-looking estimates and forecasts.

    Non-IFRS Measures
    References are made in this press release to “operating cash flow” (OCF), “free cash flow” (FCF), “Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortization” (EBITDA), “operating costs” and “net debt”/”net cash”, which are not generally accepted accounting measures under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and do not have any standardized meaning prescribed by IFRS and, therefore, may not be comparable with similar measures presented by other public companies. Non-IFRS measures should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures prepared in accordance with IFRS.

    The definition of each non-IFRS measure is presented in IPC’s MD&A (See “Non-IFRS Measures” therein).

    Operating cash flow
    The following table sets out how operating cash flow is calculated from figures shown in the Financial Statements:

      Three months ended March 31
    USD Thousands 2025   2024  
    Revenue 178,492   206,419  
    Production costs and net sales of diluent to third party 1 (103,188)   (115,745)  
    Current tax (514)   (1,373)  
    Operating cash flow 74,790   89,301  

    1Includes net sales of diluent to third party amounting to USD 191 thousand for the first quarter of 2025.

    Free cash flow
    The following table sets out how free cash flow is calculated from figures shown in the Financial Statements:

      Three months ended March 31
    USD Thousands 2025   2024  
    Operating cash flow – see above 74,790   89,301  
    Capital expenditures (98,886)   (125,256)  
    Abandonment and farm-in expenditures1 (321)   (122)  
    General, administration and depreciation expenses before depreciation2 (4,358)   (3,653)  
    Cash financial items3 (14,397)   (3,581)  
    Free cash flow (43,172)   (43,311)  

    1 See note 16 to the Financial Statements
    2 Depreciation is not specifically disclosed in the Financial Statements
    3 See notes 4 and 5 to the Financial Statements

    EBITDA
    The following table sets out the reconciliation from net result from the consolidated statement of operations to EBITDA:

      Three months ended March 31
    USD Thousands 2025   2024  
    Net result 16,231   33,719  
    Net financial items 18,855   9,770  
    Income tax 4,679   7,746  
    Depletion and decommissioning costs 29,016   33,153  
    Depreciation of other tangible fixed assets 1,917   2,262  
    Exploration and business development costs 31   75  
    Sale of assets 1 (94)   –  
    Depreciation included in general, administration and depreciation expenses 2 311   295  
    EBITDA 70,946   87,020  

    1 Sale of assets is included under “Other income/(expense)” but not specifically disclosed in the Financial Statements
    2 Item is not shown in the Financial Statements

    Operating costs
    The following table sets out how operating costs is calculated:

      Three months ended March 31
    USD Thousands 2025   2024  
    Production costs 103,379   115,745  
    Cost of blending (37,726)   (45,206)  
    Change in inventory position 3,500   5,277  
    Operating costs 69,153   75,816  
             

    Net cash/(debt)
    The following table sets out how net cash / (debt) is calculated from figures shown in the Financial Statements:

    USD Thousands March 31, 2025   December 31, 2024
    Bank loans (4,449)   (5,121)  
    Bonds1 (450,000)   (450,000)  
    Cash and cash equivalents 140,194   246,593  
    Net cash/(debt) (314,255)   (208,528)  

    1 The bond amount represents the redeemable value at maturity (February 2027).

    Reserves and Resources Advisory
    This press release contains references to estimates of gross and net reserves and resources attributed to the Corporation’s oil and gas assets. For additional information with respect to such reserves and resources, refer to “Reserves and Resources Advisory” in the MD&A. Light, medium and heavy crude oil reserves/resources disclosed in this press release include solution gas and other by-products. Also see “Supplemental Information regarding Product Types” below.

    Reserve estimates, contingent resource estimates and estimates of future net revenue in respect of IPC’s oil and gas assets in Canada are effective as of December 31, 2024, and are included in the reports prepared by Sproule Associates Limited (Sproule), an independent qualified reserves evaluator, in accordance with National Instrument 51-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Oil and Gas Activities (NI 51-101) and the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook (the COGE Handbook) and using Sproule’s December 31, 2024 price forecasts.

    Reserve estimates, contingent resource estimates and estimates of future net revenue in respect of IPC’s oil and gas assets in France and Malaysia are effective as of December 31, 2024, and are included in the report prepared by ERC Equipoise Ltd. (ERCE), an independent qualified reserves auditor, in accordance with NI 51-101 and the COGE Handbook, and using Sproule’s December 31, 2024 price forecasts.

    The price forecasts used in the Sproule and ERCE reports are available on the website of Sproule (sproule.com) and are contained in the AIF. These price forecasts are as at December 31, 2024 and may not be reflective of current and future forecast commodity prices.

    The reserve life index (RLI) is calculated by dividing the 2P reserves of 493 MMboe as at December 31, 2024 by the mid-point of the 2025 CMD production guidance of 43,000 to 45,000 boepd.

    IPC uses the industry-accepted standard conversion of six thousand cubic feet of natural gas to one barrel of oil (6 Mcf = 1 bbl). A BOE conversion ratio of 6:1 is based on an energy equivalency conversion method primarily applicable at the burner tip and does not represent a value equivalency at the wellhead. As the value ratio between natural gas and crude oil based on the current prices of natural gas and crude oil is significantly different from the energy equivalency of 6:1, utilizing a 6:1 conversion basis may be misleading as an indication of value.

    Supplemental Information regarding Product Types

    The following table is intended to provide supplemental information about the product type composition of IPC’s net average daily production figures provided in this press release:

             
      Heavy Crude Oil
    (Mbopd)
    Light and Medium Crude
    Oil (Mbopd)
    Conventional Natural Gas
    (per day)
    Total
    (Mboepd)
    Three months ended        
    March 31, 2025 23.2 6.5 88.2 MMcf
    (14.7 Mboe)
    44.4
    March 31, 2024 24.9 7.9 96.0 MMcf
    (16.0 Mboe)
    48.8
    Year ended        
    December 31, 2024 23.9 7.7 95.1 MMcf
    (15.8 Mboe)
    47.4
             

    This press release also makes reference to IPC’s forecast total average daily production of 43,000 to 45,000 boepd for 2025. IPC estimates that approximately 52% of that production will be comprised of heavy oil, approximately 15% will be comprised of light and medium crude oil and approximately 33% will be comprised of conventional natural gas.

    Currency
    All dollar amounts in this press release are expressed in United States dollars, except where otherwise noted. References herein to USD mean United States dollars and to MUSD mean millions of United States dollars. References herein to CAD mean Canadian dollars.

    The MIL Network –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Greenpeace – Luxon Government to pass law tonight that legalises killing Kiwi

    Source: Greenpeace

    The Luxon Government has just introduced a bill into the House that would make it legal to kill protected wildlife. Greenpeace understands the Bill is being rushed through all stages under urgency tonight, without public consultation or proper scrutiny.
    The amendment to the Wildlife Act, New Zealand’s foundational wildlife protection law, would allow the Director-General of Conservation to grant companies permission to kill native animals if they get in the way of projects like roads, mines or dams.
    Greenpeace has condemned the move as a clear and dangerous escalation of the Luxon Government’s war on nature.
    “No one wants to see roading or mining companies handed a licence to kill kiwi – but that’s exactly what this Bill makes possible,” says Greenpeace campaigner Gen Toop.
    “This is a law change no one asked for – except the corporations that see wildlife as an obstacle to profit. It’s being rushed through in the dead of night so the public can’t even have a say,”
    “If this Bill passes, it will go down in history as the moment the Government chose corporate profits over protecting wildlife that is already on the brink of extinction,” says Toop.
    Greenpeace is calling for the immediate withdrawal of the amendment and for the Government to strengthen, not weaken, protections for the country’s threatened wildlife.
    The Bill comes after a landmark High Court decision in the case of the Environmental Law Initiative v The Director-General of the Department of Conservation (DOC) and others. The case challenged DOC’s decision to grant Waka Kotahi permission to kill wildlife during construction of the Mt Messenger Bypass in Taranaki.
    The Judge ruled that the permit was unlawful, upending years of DOC’s practice of granting permits which authorised the killing of wildlife under the Wildlife Act.
    “The Luxon Government is changing the law to legalise what the High Court just ruled is illegal,” says Toop. “We’re talking about the kiwi – our national icon – being sacrificed so a company can build a road faster. That’s just not who we are as a country.”
    Greenpeace says the move is part of a wider pattern of stripping away safeguards for land, fresh water, and wildlife such as the repeal of the oil and gas ban, the introduction of the Fast-Track Act, and the recently announced RMA reforms.
    “Once a species is gone, it’s gone forever. We should be strengthening protections for endangered wildlife, not making it legal to kill them,” says Toop.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-Evening Report: Cook Islands environment group calls on govt to condemn Trump’s seabed mining order

    By Losirene Lacanivalu, of the Cook Islands News

    A leading Cook Islands environmental lobby group is hoping that the Cook Islands government will speak out against the recent executive order from US President Donald Trump aimed at fast-tracking seabed mining.

    Te Ipukarea Society (TIS) says the arrogance of US president Trump to think that he could break international law by authorising deep seabed mining in international waters was “astounding”, and an action of a “bully”.

    Trump signed the America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources order late last month, directing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to allow deep sea mining permits.

    The order states: “It is the policy of the US to advance United States leadership in seabed mineral development.”

    NOAA has been directed to, within 60 days, “expedite the process for reviewing and issuing seabed mineral exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits in areas beyond national jurisdiction under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act.”

    It directs the US science and environmental agency to expedite permits for companies to mine the ocean floor in the US and international waters.

    In addition, a Canadian mining company — The Metals Company — has indicated that they have applied for a permit from Trump’s administration to start commercially mining in international waters.

    The mining company had been unsuccessful in gaining a commercial mining licence through the International Seabed Authority (ISA).

    ‘Arrogance of Trump’
    Te Ipukarea Society’s technical director Kelvin Passfield told Cook Islands News: “The arrogance of Donald Trump to think that he can break international law by authorising deep seabed mining in international waters is astounding.

    “The United States cannot pick and choose which aspects of the United Nations Law of the Sea it will follow, and which ones it will ignore. This is the action of a bully,” he said.

    “It is reckless and completely dismissive of the international rule of law. At the moment we have 169 countries, plus the European Union, all recognising international law under the International Seabed Authority.

    “For one country to start making new international rules for themselves is a dangerous notion, especially if it leads to other States thinking they too can also breach international law with no consequences,” he said.

    TIS president June Hosking said the fact that a part of the Pacific (CCZ) was carved up and shared between nations all over the world was yet another example of “blatantly disregarding or overriding indigenous rights”.

    “I can understand why something had to be done to protect the high seas from rogues having a ‘free for all’, but it should have been Pacific indigenous and first nations groups, within and bordering the Pacific, who decided what happened to the high seas.

    “That’s the first nations groups, not for example, the USA as it is today.”

    South American countries worried
    Hosking highlighted that at the March International Seabed Authority (ISA) assembly she attended it was obvious that South American countries were worried.

    “Many have called for a moratorium. Portugal rightly pointed out that we were all there, at great cost, just for a commercial activity. The delegate said, ‘We must ask ourselves how does this really benefit all of humankind?’

    Looking at The Metals Company’s interests to commercially mine in international waters, Hosking said, “I couldn’t help being annoyed that all this talk assumes mining will happen.

    “ISA was formed at a time when things were assumed about the deep sea e.g. it’s just a desert down there, nothing was known for sure, we didn’t speak of climate crisis, waste crisis and other crises now evident.

    “The ISA mandate is ‘to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from the harmful effects that may arise from deep seabed related activities.

    “We know much more (but still not enough) to consider that effective protection of the marine environment may require it to be declared a ‘no go zone’, to be left untouched for the good of humankind,” she added.

    Meanwhile, technical director Passfield also added, “The audacity of The Metals Company (TMC) to think they can flaunt international law in order to get an illegal mining licence from the United States to start seabed mining in international waters is a sad reflection of the morality of Gerard Barron and others in charge of TMC.

    ‘What stops other countries?’
    “If the USA is allowed to authorise mining in international waters under a domestic US law, what is stopping any other country in the world from enacting legislation and doing the same?”

    He said that while the Metals Company may be frustrated at the amount of time that the International Seabed Authority is taking to finalise mining rules for deep seabed mining, “we are sure they fully understand that this is for good reason. The potentially disastrous impacts of mining our deep ocean seabed need to be better understood, and this takes time.”

    He said that technology and infrastructure to mine is not in place yet.

    “We need to take as much time as we need to ensure that if mining proceeds, it does not cause serious damage to our ocean. Their attempts to rush the process are selfish, greedy, and driven purely by a desire to profit at any cost to the environment.

    “We hope that the Cook Islands Government speaks out against this abuse of international law by the United States.” Cook Islands News has reached out to the Office of the Prime Minister and Seabed Minerals Authority (SBMA) for comment.

    Republished from the Cook Islands News with permission.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Leader Schumer, Padilla, Whitehouse Lead Democratic Ranking Members in Warning Republicans Against Overruling Parliamentarian’s Decision on California’s Clean Air Act Waivers

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

    Leader Schumer, Padilla, Whitehouse Lead Democratic Ranking Members in Warning Republicans Against Overruling Parliamentarian’s Decision on California’s Clean Air Act Waivers

    Senators to Republican Leadership: Disregarding the Senate Parliamentarian’s decision in an attempt to revoke California’s waivers “would be a procedural nuclear option—a dramatic break from Senate precedent with profound institutional consequences.”
    WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, led Democratic Ranking Members in strongly warning Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) of the dangerous and irreparable consequences if Senate Republicans overrule the Senate Parliamentarian’s decision regarding California’s preemption waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that allow the state to implement more protective air quality standards.
    The letter comes after the House of Representatives last week voted to revoke three of California’s Clean Air Act waivers for the state’s clean cars and trucks programs, despite the Government Accountability Office (GAO)’s determination that California’s Clean Air Act waivers are not rules under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and the Senate Parliamentarian’s decision that any CRA resolutions on this subject would therefore require 60 votes to secure Senate passage. The Senators emphasized that GAO’s determination is consistent with 50 years of agency practice, and that Senate opponents of the Clean Air Act waivers — including Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Shelley Moore Capito (R-W. Va.) — have even previously acknowledged themselves that these waivers are not reviewable under the CRA by sponsoring legislation related to California’s waiver authority.
    “We understand that some may be considering overruling the Parliamentarian’s decision,” wrote the Senators. “While that might be more expedient than agency rulemaking or considering legislation under the Senate’s normal rules, such an action would be a procedural nuclear option—a dramatic break from Senate precedent with profound institutional consequences.”
    The Senators warned that if Senate Republicans disregard the Senate Parliamentarian’s decision in an attempt to revoke California’s Clean Air Act waivers, they would set a precedent that could be applied to legislation beyond the CRA — eliminating longstanding guardrails and paving the way for a future Senate Majority to overrule the Parliamentarian in order to achieve its legislative goals.
    “If the current Senate Majority were to open this door, the CRA could be weaponized to retroactively invalidate decades of agency actions—including adjudications, permits, and licensing decisions that were never previously considered ‘rules’—and effectively hijack the Senate floor,” continued the Senators. “In addition, if efforts to invalidate such actions were successful, future administrations would face significant obstacles utilizing the underlying authorities for any arguably similar actions, given the plain text of the CRA. Most importantly, however, once that precedent is set, a future Senate Majority could subsequently apply it to legislation beyond the CRA. Put bluntly, there is no cabining a decision to overrule the Parliamentarian.”
    In addition to Leader Schumer and Senators Padilla and Whitehouse, the letter was also signed by U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), and Chris Coons (D-Del.).
    Senator Padilla has been outspoken in pushing back against Republican attacks on California’s Clean Air Act waivers. Padilla, Whitehouse, and Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) welcomed the Senate Parliamentarian’s decision that the waivers are not subject to the CRA. Padilla also joined Senators Whitehouse and Schiff in blasting Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s weaponization of the EPA after that GAO finding. Padilla and Schiff previously slammed the Trump Administration’s intent to roll back dozens of the EPA’s regulations that protect California’s air and water.
    Full text of the letter is available here and below:
    Dear Leader Thune and Whip Barrasso:
    We write to emphasize the far-reaching and likely irreversible consequences if the current Senate Majority were to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian’s recent decision that a joint resolution of disapproval regarding three Clean Air Act preemption waivers granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the state of California would not be entitled to expedited procedures in the Senate.
    In reaching that decision, the Senate Parliamentarian relied on the determination made by the independent, non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) that the three Clean Air Act preemption waivers do not qualify as “rules” under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
    GAO’s determination should not be seen as novel or surprising because it is consistent with fifty years of agency practice. Even prominent Senate opponents of the Clean Air Act waiver provision—including Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lee and Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Capito—have previously acknowledged in legislation and public materials that these waivers are not subject to CRA review.
    We, however, do not write to relitigate the determination by GAO or the question already decided by the Parliamentarian. Both parties have been on the losing end of decisions by the Parliamentarian. We ourselves were on the losing end of several decisions by the Parliamentarian during the 117th Congress. But we did not attempt to overrule these decisions, even though we did not agree with them.
    Now, we understand that some may be considering overruling the Parliamentarian’s decision. While that might be more expedient than agency rulemaking or considering legislation under the Senate’s normal rules, such an action would be a procedural nuclear option—a dramatic break from Senate precedent with profound institutional consequences.
    If the current Senate Majority were to open this door, the CRA could be weaponized to retroactively invalidate decades of agency actions—including adjudications, permits, and licensing decisions that were never previously considered “rules”—and effectively hijack the Senate floor. In addition, if efforts to invalidate such actions were successful, future administrations would face significant obstacles utilizing the underlying authorities for any arguably similar actions, given the plain text of the CRA. Most importantly, however, once that precedent is set, a future Senate Majority could subsequently apply it to legislation beyond the CRA. Put bluntly, there is no cabining a decision to overrule the Parliamentarian. 
    We therefore urge you to weigh these issues carefully—with full knowledge of the consequences—should you consider whether to overrule the Parliamentarian regarding a CRA resolution disapproving the Clean Air Act preemption waivers.
    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Local environment prioritised, thanks to targeted rate

    Source: Secondary teachers question rationale for changes to relationship education guidelines

    A targeted rate that protects and restores Auckland’s environment is delivering beyond its investment, thanks to the support of partners and volunteers.

    Auckland Council’s environmental services team delivers natural environment and climate outcomes Auckland-wide, through a programme that delivers great value at community level.

    At April’s Revenue, Expenditure and Value Committee, chaired by Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, the division’s financial performance review highlighted its multi-pronged approach.

    “Protecting our unique natural environment requires ongoing management of pressures, such as pest plants and animals. Through the targeted rate, it receives dedicated investment so, ultimately, we have an Auckland we are proud to call home,” says Cr Simpson.

    “The environmental programme is delivering great results region-wide and in our local communities too, thanks to key partnerships, co-funding, new tools to lift productivity and volunteers.

    “The natural environment programme is 97 per cent rates funded, which is around $43 per year per ratepayer through the Natural Environment Targeted Rate (NETR) and some general rates.

    “That investment delivers good value for money,” says Simpson. “In some cases, it delivers a quantifiable $6 return for every $1 invested.”

    How we’re investing for the natural environment

    NETR and general rates funding delivers and supports a range of environmental activity, including community-led initiatives across all Auckland Council wards.

    Auckland Council environmental services general manager Samantha Hill says environmental protection and restoration is a long-term game and the focus is on delivering on commitments that will have enduring future impact.

    “We are here to protect, improve and minimise risks to the natural environment and we can’t do this alone. It is important to recognise and acknowledge the tireless commitment and support from our partners and communities,” says Ms Hill.

    “The NETR-funded work has enabled a wide range of community-led action and youth involvement. At the same time, key partnerships and regularly assessing opportunities to improve, such as new technologies and tools, means we continue to deliver value for money.”

    Rates funding helps contract specialist environmental services; enables partnerships with investors to deliver even greater value; and helps activate community-led conservation, including around $2 million per year in contestable grants.

    Community grants, technical advice and training is funded by both the NETR and general rates, helping deliver proactive action at local level but also added value.

    For example, the Community Coordination and Facilitation Grant saw $1 million in funding shared across 36 local community groups in 2024 – ultimately resulting in over 276,000 volunteer hours and third-party funding on projects benefiting the natural environment.

    It also delivered a $6.10 return for each $1 of grant funding invested.

    Environmental services work closely with local boards to design and deliver locally driven initiatives, supporting over 110 local board projects worth $4 million in 2023-2024.

    Additional strategic partnerships with business, mana whenua, central government, community and private investors, and other groups, are also adding value to the programme.

    For example, over $2 million has been sourced so far from central government and private investors for the first phase of the Kawau Island multi-species pest eradication project. Private sector business and philanthropic funding has also been secured for other projects.

    Detailed information on NETR-funded activity delivered in each local board can be found on this PDF [7.77MB].

    To find out more about Auckland Council’s environmental programme, visit www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/environment

    What the Natural Environment Targeted Rate (NETR) delivers

    The current priorities:

    • upgrade and re-open tracks in the Waitākere Ranges in accordance with the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park 2019-2024 Track Reopening Programme

    • control possums across the region, in high priority sites

    • adequate control of pest plants for 66 per cent of significant ecological sites within council parks by 2028

    • work in partnership to achieve pest mammal eradications on Kawau, Aotea and Waiheke islands

    • protect regionally threatened species and high priority ecosystems

    • support community-led action through the provision of advice, grants and tools

    • deliver in partnership with mana whenua

    • implement a comprehensive Pest Free Warrant programme to reduce pest spread to islands by the full range of high-risk businesses.

    What’s been achieved to date:

    • thirty-three tracks upgraded in the Waitākere Ranges

    • Hūnua Ranges Regional Park remains free of kauri dieback disease

    • Hūnua and Waitakere Ranges regional parks are kept free of feral deer and goats

    • 30 per cent of rural mainland Auckland has possum populations maintained at/below target densities for biodiversity protection (at June 2024)

    • Kōkako populations in the Hūnua Ranges have increased from 106 pairs in 2018 to 259 in 2024, as a result of possum and predator control

    • regional conservation status assessments have been completed for freshwater fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, bats and vascular plants

    • 51 per cent of priority native habitats in regional parks have pest plants being effectively controlled towards, or managed below, target densities for biodiversity protection (at June 2024)

    • partnerships are underway with Ngāti Manuhiri, Department of Conservation, Predator Free 2050 Ltd, Ministry for Primary Industries and the Kawau community to eradicate possums and wallabies on Kawau Island

    • the council is also partnering with Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea to eradicate rats, cats and pest plants on Aotea. Alongside Te Korowai o Waiheke, the council is supporting the eradication of stoats and the trialling of rat eradication on Waiheke Island

    • around 800 scheduled and unscheduled vehicle and passenger ferry sailings are inspected for pests each year. As a result, all Hauraki Gulf Islands where non-native predators such as rats and stoats have been eradicated remain free of these pests.   

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Local environment prioritised thanks to targeted rate

    Source: Secondary teachers question rationale for changes to relationship education guidelines

    A targeted rate that protects and restores Auckland’s environment is delivering beyond its investment, thanks to the support of partners and volunteers.

    Auckland Council’s environmental services team delivers natural environment and climate outcomes Auckland-wide, through a programme that delivers great value at community level.

    At April’s Revenue, Expenditure and Value Committee, chaired by Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, the division’s financial performance review highlighted its multi-pronged approach.

    “Protecting our unique natural environment requires ongoing management of pressures, such as pest plants and animals. Through the targeted rate, it receives dedicated investment so, ultimately, we have an Auckland we are proud to call home,” says Cr Simpson.

    “The environmental programme is delivering great results region-wide and in our local communities too, thanks to key partnerships, co-funding, new tools to lift productivity and volunteers.

    “The natural environment programme is 97 per cent rates funded, which is around $43 per year per ratepayer through the Natural Environment Targeted Rate (NETR) and some general rates.

    “That investment delivers good value for money,” says Cr Simpson. “In some cases, it delivers a quantifiable $6 return for every $1 invested.”

    How we’re investing for the natural environment
    NETR and general rates funding delivers and supports a range of environmental activity, including community-led initiatives across all Auckland Council wards.

    Auckland Council environmental services general manager Samantha Hill says environmental protection and restoration is a long-term game and the focus is on delivering on commitments that will have enduring future impact.

    “We are here to protect, improve and minimise risks to the natural environment and we can’t do this alone. It is important to recognise and acknowledge the tireless commitment and support from our partners and communities,” says Ms Hill.

    “The NETR-funded work has enabled a wide range of community-led action and youth involvement. At the same time, key partnerships and regularly assessing opportunities to improve, such as new technologies and tools, means we continue to deliver value for money.”

    Rates funding helps contract specialist environmental services; enables partnerships with investors to deliver even greater value; and helps activate community-led conservation, including around $2 million per year in contestable grants.

    Community grants, technical advice and training is funded by both the NETR and general rates, helping deliver proactive action at local level but also added value.

    For example, the Community Coordination and Facilitation Grant saw $1 million in funding shared across 36 local community groups in 2024 – ultimately resulting in over 276,000 volunteer hours and third-party funding on projects benefiting the natural environment.

    It also delivered a $6.10 return for each $1 of grant funding invested.

    Environmental services work closely with local boards to design and deliver locally driven initiatives, supporting over 110 local board projects worth $4 million in 2023-2024.

    Additional strategic partnerships with business, mana whenua, central government, community and private investors, and other groups, are also adding value to the programme.

    Over $2 million has been sourced so far from central government and private investors for the first phase of the Kawau Island multi-species pest eradication project. Private sector business and philanthropic funding has also been secured for other projects.

    Detailed information on NETR-funded activity delivered in each local board can be found here.

    To find out more about Auckland Council’s environmental programme, visit www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/environment

    What the Natural Environment Targeted Rate (NETR) delivers

    The current priorities:

    • upgrade and re-open tracks in the Waitākere Ranges in accordance with the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park 2019-2024 Track Reopening Programme
    • control possums across the region, in high priority sites
    • adequate control of pest plants for 66 per cent of significant ecological sites within council parks by 2028
    • work in partnership to achieve pest mammal eradications on Kawau, Aotea and Waiheke islands
    • protect regionally threatened species and high priority ecosystems
    • support community-led action through the provision of advice, grants and tools
    • deliver in partnership with mana whenua
    • implement a comprehensive Pest Free Warrant programme to reduce pest spread to islands by the full range of high-risk businesses.

    What’s been achieved to date:

    • thirty-three tracks upgraded in the Waitākere Ranges
    • Hūnua Ranges Regional Park remains free of kauri dieback disease
    • Hūnua and Waitakere Ranges regional parks are kept free of feral deer and goats
    • 30 per cent of rural mainland Auckland has possum populations maintained at/below target densities for biodiversity protection (at June 2024)
    • Kōkako populations in the Hūnua Ranges have increased from 106 pairs in 2018 to 259 in 2024, as a result of possum and predator control
    • regional conservation status assessments have been completed for freshwater fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, bats and vascular plants
    • 51 per cent of priority native habitats in regional parks have pest plants being effectively controlled towards, or managed below, target densities for biodiversity protection (at June 2024)
    • partnerships are underway with Ngāti Manuhiri, Department of Conservation, Predator Free 2050 Ltd, Ministry for Primary Industries and the Kawau community to eradicate possums and wallabies on Kawau Island
    • the council is also partnering with Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea to eradicate rats, cats and pest plants on Aotea. Alongside Te Korowai o Waiheke, the council is supporting the eradication of stoats and the trialling of rat eradication on Waiheke Island.
    • around 800 scheduled and unscheduled vehicle and passenger ferry sailings are inspected for pests each year. As a result, all Hauraki Gulf Islands where non-native predators such as rats and stoats have been eradicated remain free of these pests.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Kiwis dig deep to help DOC save world’s rarest dotterel

    Source: Police investigating after shots fired at Hastings house

    Date:  06 May 2025 Source:  Department of Conservation and New Zealand Nature Fund

    Pukunui are the world’s rarest wading bird. A year ago, there were just 101 left on Earth. This year, flock counts showed a population increase of four birds bringing the total to 105.

    It’s a small lift, but hugely significant, says DOC pukunui ranger Dan Cocker.

    “Pukunui only breed on Rakiura/Stewart Island and some of them migrate to Awarua Bay in Southland to feed. If they don’t survive in these places, they’ll be gone for good.”

    Pukunui numbers have fluctuated over the past 30 years due to different predators, but especially feral cats. The population hit an all-time low of 62 birds in 1992 and bounced back to 290 after intensive predator control in 2009, before rapidly declining again despite continued pest control efforts.

    DOC has a dedicated ‘Pukunui Recovery Team’ who work hard on bird monitoring, banding, and predator control at breeding sites and surrounding areas.

    “We’re thrilled the April flock counts showed a population increase,” says Dan, “But 105 is still a perilously low number for this one-of-a-kind bird. We can’t take our foot off the gas.”

    In 2023 the New Zealand Nature Fund launched a campaign in partnership with DOC to raise funds from donors to support DOC’s Pukunui Recovery Team to protect pukunui from predators.

    NZ Nature Fund CEO Sarah Lyttle says over 600 people have already contributed to the pukunui campaign with more than $400,000 raised to date including $200,000 from an anonymous party and $20,000 from the Southland branch of Forest and Bird.

    DOC has used funds from these donations to boost the Pukunui Recovery Programme by employing additional trappers to target feral cats at nest sites, adding cameras around key breeding sites to monitor feral cat numbers, buying extra feral cat kill traps, and supporting more helicopter flights to monitor remote pukunui nesting sites.

    “Enabling people to invest directly in projects that prevent extinction is our mission and it’s wonderful our donors have made a very tangible difference to the pukunui this season,” says Sarah.

    “I hope this encourages more Kiwis to dig deep and invest directly in this precious endangered species.”

    “Donations to New Zealand Nature Fund’s campaign boosted our ground trapping efforts, resulting in 64 feral cats being trapped across our predator control zones, that’s almost double what we caught last season,” says Dan.

    “While the extra trapping efforts have benefited pukunui, we’re barely holding the line for this species. We need to control feral cats across a much larger area where pukunui breed.”

    DOC is currently considering a proposal for an aerial 1080 operation to protect nesting pukunui ahead of the 2025/26 breeding season.

    The goal of the Pukunui Recovery Team is to increase pukunui numbers to at least 300 birds by 2035.

    “We still have a long way to go to reach this goal,” says Dan. “The good news is if we work together, we can create safe havens for our taonga species by removing pests and restoring ecosystems.”

    You can donate to help the plight of pukunui/southern NZ dotterels here:

    Southern Dotterel / Pukunui | NZ Nature Fund

    Background information

    DOC is considering a proposal for an aerial 1080 operation prior to the upcoming 2025/26 breeding season to protect nesting pukunui by targeting possums and rats and feral cats as they eat poisoned rats and possums.

    The longer-term goal is to remove rats, possums, feral cats, and hedgehogs from Rakiura to enable nature and the community to thrive together. See Predator Free Rakiura.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Hill Fights to Turn Vacant Federal Building into Community Space in Perry County

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman French Hill (AR-02)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congressman French Hill (AR-02) has introduced legislation to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a vacant U.S. Forest Service building and its surrounding land in Perryville, Arkansas, to Perry County.

    Rep. Hill said, “For years, this building has sat empty when the people of Perry County could have put it to good use. My bill will change that. By transferring it to the county, it will give the community the space it needs for youth programs, agricultural education, and conservation efforts that strengthen families and support our local economy. This is a smart use of public resources and a clear win for the community. I’m proud to lead this effort and look forward to seeing this legislation become law so Perry County can finally put this building to work for its people.”

    The 0.81-acre parcel, located at 1069 Fourche Avenue, includes a federal building operated by the U.S. Forest Service. The building is vacant, and the U.S. Forest Service has no plans to use it going forward. While the building will require repairs and updates, Perry County has the funds to make the necessary improvements. Once conveyed and repaired, the property will support permanent operations of the University of Arkansas Extension Program and the Perry County Conservation District, and serve as the meeting space for the 4-H Youth Development Program.

    Several local leaders and Perry County residents have voiced their support for the building to be conveyed to Perry County.

    Perry County Judge Larry Blackmon said, “The prospect of being able to use this building means a lot to the citizens of Perry County. It will let us turn a vacant space into something useful for our kids, local farmers, and conservation work without putting extra strain on the county’s budget. Having control of the building will help us serve our community for years to come, and I’m truly grateful to Congressman Hill and his team for their help in making it possible.”

    Donnie Crain, president of the Perry County Chamber of Commerce, said, “We pride ourselves in Perry County as being ‘Rural Arkansas at its best’ — and our Extension Service and the resources that they provide are a big component of our community. The transfer of this facility will not only bolster the efforts of the University of Arkansas Extension Service but also foster a stronger, more resilient Perry County.”

    Amy Branch, chair of the board of the Perry County Conservation District, said, “This transfer would provide significant benefits to our community and support several county agencies. Consolidating resources in one location will improve coordination, communication, and efficiency, ultimately enhancing the services we provide to the residents of Perry County. Having a suitable facility to house these efforts is essential to continue environmental stewardship and support for landowners, farmers, and residents.”

    Kallem Hill, president of the Perry County Farm Bureau Board of Directors, said, “This facility holds significant potential to serve as a vital resource for our community. By securing a dedicated space for their operations, we believe the Extension Service will be able to enhance its outreach and impact, thereby benefiting the entire Perry County population. Its transfer to Perry County will ensure that the building is maintained and utilized effectively, contributing to the continued growth and development of our agricultural community.”

    Jacob Farnam, board president of the Perryville School District, said, “This facility has the potential to become a vital hub for the Perry County Extension Service and 4-H Youth Development Programs, delivering significant benefits to our community — particularly its young people. This transfer would empower the Extension Service and 4-H to strengthen Perry County for years to come.”

    Rose Gunther, a local resident, said, “As a 4-H member, I witnessed firsthand the dedication of our extension staff, who often faced challenges in securing enough space to conduct vital programming. Whether it was for cooking classes, public speaking exercises, or hands-on projects like the Kids Chef Challenge, our staff frequently had to scramble to find suitable venues, stretching resources thin. Securing the U.S. Forest Service facility would offer a much-needed solution to these challenges.”

    Ettamarie Belden, a local resident, said, “I have been a 4-H leader and volunteer for over 50 years, and our county has always been short of space for 4-H activities as well as adult activities and training. It would be a blessing to be able to put this area to use.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Monday 5 May 2025

    Source: NZ Music Month takes to the streets

    POST-CABINET PRESS CONFERENCE: Monday, 5 May 2025

    EPIQ TRANSCRIPT

    PM:           Well, look, good afternoon, everyone. It’s great to be joined this afternoon by our awesome Trade Minister, Todd McClay, who’s doing some incredible work. As you know, it’s a big sitting block with the Budget at the end of it, and that Budget will then be there to underline this Government’s clear focus on economic growth and, as you know, growth is the primary focus of us and our Government and will continue to be at the core of everything we do. We know that these are challenging times and not easy. New Zealand is still recovering from the economic damage inflicted by Labour and further global instability has made things tough for Kiwis. But despite these challenges, we are overseeing a steady economic recovery with export-led growth and business confidence increasing, and we have started to turn the corner. 

    So this will be a growth Budget because economic growth means Kiwis have money in their pockets and we can fund better public services, and this will also be a responsible Budget, a predictable, steady approach to economic and fiscal management so that we can support economic growth. It is ultimately businesses that grow the economy through their decisions to expand, invest and create jobs, and the Government’s role is to create the conditions for them to do that, and this includes getting the basics right, such as low and stable inflation, manageable interest rates and credible fiscal management. 

    Promoting global growth and trade and investment is one of the five pillars to our Going for Growth plan, and it’s absolutely essential for New Zealand to maximise its potential and New Zealanders to enjoy higher incomes and better public services. As we so often say, we can’t get rich selling to ourselves, so the Government has a clear target to double the value of New Zealand’s exports in 10 years by 2034. And in 2023, to give you a feel for it, one in four of our jobs in New Zealand—around 680,000 New Zealanders—derive their livelihoods from producing goods and services for export. And in addition to bringing in additional revenue, businesses that export also boost New Zealand’s productivity by having more exposure to more diverse competition, connecting to new markets and consumers, and also investing in research and development and innovation. 

    I cannot overstate how important trade and investment is to this country, and that is why both Todd as Trade Minister and myself as Prime Minister are throwing our all into doing business with the world. My recent trip to the UK is actually a prime example. It was incredibly productive and the UK relationship, I think, has new vigour. We’ve always had very strong historical ties with a similar set of values and outlook on the world, but as Prime Minister Starmer and I noted, we now have new things to propel the relationship going forward in the years ahead, in the areas of defence and security, of course, but excitingly in our bilateral trade and investment too. Our free trade agreement with the UK provides New Zealand businesses with certainty of access to this high-value market and we have enjoyed export growth of more than 20 percent in the last 12 months. 

    But it’s not just the UK. The EU FTA, which we implemented earlier, has just reached its first anniversary and is already showing dividends since it was put into place, having generated an additional $1.2 billion and having grown exports up 28 percent. We’re opening up new markets as well, as you know, with our signed agreements in the UAE and the GCC recently, thanks to Todd’s relentless focus on closing those deals for the betterment of our exporters, and the launch of negotiations on an Indian FTA are an important step forward too. 

    So trade and growth will be critical to improving our economic prospects in the coming years and so our businesses can create those jobs and lift incomes for Kiwis. I’ll now pass over to Todd to talk a little bit more about our trade agenda and prospects ahead. 

    Hon Todd McClay:    Well, thank you, Prime Minister and good afternoon, everybody. It’s been a busy and important period of time for New Zealand trade and today I want to give an update on three key areas where we’re seeing growth and development: our trade growth with the EU one year after early entry into force of the free trade agreement, the first in-person free trade agreement negotiations with India, and our growing trade ties with the Gulf region. 

    Last week marked one year since the early entry into force of the New Zealand‒European Union free trade agreement, and the results speak for themselves. As the Prime Minister said, just in 12 months, total goods exports to the European Union from New Zealand surged by 28 percent, from $3.77 billion to $4.81 billion, and this is delivering real benefit for New Zealand exporters, particularly sheep meat exports, which grew 29 percent, worth an additional $216 million. Kiwifruit exports increased by 69 percent, worth an additional $316 million, and machinery exports were by 104 percent, which are worth an additional $173 million. 

    Importantly, the agreement delivers better market access, lower costs, and reduced barriers for New Zealand businesses. It’s also a strong example of our broader trade strategy, working to open up high-quality and high-value markets to double the value of exports in 10 years. We worked across the House last year to see the agreement entry into force many months earlier than had been forecast, and as an example, that meant that kiwifruit growers could take advantage of a full harvest season, adding an additional $18,000 on average for every kiwifruit grower in New Zealand. 

    I’m pleased to also confirm that the first in-person FTA negotiations between New Zealand and India will begin this week in India. This follows the Deputy Prime Minister’s successful visit to India last year, and the formal launch of negotiations by my counterpart, Minister Piyush Goyal, and myself during the Prime Minister’s very large and successful trade mission in April. India is one of the world’s fastest growing economies, with a current GDP of US$4.3 trillion, expected or forecast to grow to US$5.2 trillion by 2030. With a population of 1.4 billion people and current two-way trade of NZ$3.14 billion, there’s huge untapped potential for New Zealand exporters. These negotiations in person mark an important milestone and signal the intent of both governments to pursue a high-quality, comprehensive agreement that benefits both countries. The comprehensive FTA with India is also part of our strategy to diversify trade, expand export markets and deliver for all New Zealanders, and we’re focused on backing our exporters and attracting investment and growing the economy. 

    Finally, in the Middle East, following the conclusion of the GCC trade deal at the end of last year, momentum around trade and investment opportunities in that part of the world is growing. Last week I hosted Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Environment, Water and Agriculture, Minister Al-Fadley, for the 9th New Zealand‒Saudi Arabian Joint Ministerial Commission in Auckland. This is an opportunity to showcase what New Zealand has to offer from food security, agritech, clean technology and education. The Saudi Arabian delegation included 37 officials and business leaders, and a strong signal of the interest in what New Zealand brings to the table. We’re preparing to sign the New Zealand‒GCC free trade agreement, which will deliver duty-free access for 99 percent of our exports to that market over time. And Saudi Arabia is already our largest trading partner in the Gulf and this agreement will help us grow exports in agriculture, food innovation, fintech, and much more. 

    So, to recap, the EU deal is delivering 12 months into the agreement, India in-person negotiations are beginning, and the Middle East holds great potential for New Zealand exporters. We’re working across the Government hard for Kiwis, securing deals and backing New Zealand exporters to succeed on the world stage.

    PM:           Well, thank you, Todd, and can I just say also thank you for the work that you’re doing because I know you’re on the plane a lot and, as I say, you are Trade McClay and we really appreciate what you’re doing. With that, happy to take any questions you may have. 

    Media:      Sticking on trade for a minute, have you seen Donald Trump’s latest social media post relating to the film industry and are you concerned about the impact it could have on New Zealand’s film industry? 

    PM:           I have seen it. Obviously, we need to see what the detail is, but what I’d just say to you is, having been at Weta Unleashed recently with Sir Richard Taylor, we’ve got an absolutely world-class industry. This is the best place to make movies in, period, in the world. That’s why I spent a lot of time with Bollywood actors and directors, actually, when I was in India, making the case for making more movies here, and we’ll continue to do so. So we’ll have to see the detail of what actually ultimately emerges, but obviously I’m a great advocate, great champion of that sector and that industry, and I think, you know, we want to keep making, you know, strong moves on it. 

    Media:      Does the threat of a 100 percent tariff on imported movies make you reconsider the film subsidies that the Government offers at all? 

    PM:           Look, again, you know, we’ve seen a post on social media. We need to understand what any details are. 

    Media:      [Inaudible] quite a lot of them.

    PM:           Yeah, yeah, sure. We’ll have to see what the details are. I’m just saying to you it’s a fantastic industry. It’s got amazing people. It’s got incredible technology associated with it, great jobs, and we’re going to continue to advocate very strongly for the sector. 

    Media:      What about the language that he’s using, that it’s a national security threat, it’s propaganda, all the movies coming—

    PM:           Well, I don’t comment on every utterance of the US President. I’m focused on New Zealand and maximising the opportunities for New Zealand. And all I’m saying is that’s what I’ve been doing is, you know, in that sector, which I just think is truly world-class. You know, I’ve been advocating for it in India for that exact same reason. What would it take to get more Bollywood productions here in New Zealand, and other places as well? 

    Media:      How damaging would that be to your goal of economic growth? I think US productions account for about $1.5 billion to the New Zealand screen industry every single year. How would that affect our economy if he went through with those tariffs? 

    PM:           Well, look, I mean, as we’ve been quite upfront about, you know, it’s a pretty—you know, there’s a lot of volatility in the global economic space and the global economy at the moment. You know, we’ve advocated strongly, you know, that we don’t believe tariffs is the way to go forward. We’ll continue to do that. But importantly, there are also swings and roundabouts and opportunities that come in that environment as well. And so, you know, it’s not possible for me to say what the exact effect of that would be; I just think it’s way too early. Let’s see the detail and see what’s being proposed and what actually does get implemented. 

    Media:      Can you rule out any changes to the rebate? 

    PM:           Look, again, I’ve just seen the post on the way through, on the way down here. It’s not something that we’ve given a lot of thought to yet. All I’m focused on is making sure we grow that sector and grow that great industry. 

    Media:      Have you given any consideration to increasing the rebate to try and incentivise productions to still come to New Zealand? 

    PM:           Again, way too soon. We haven’t given any thought to it. We’ve just seen a post from the US President. As I said, I don’t get into the habit of commenting on everything the President says. I’m focused on New Zealand growing all sectors with as many countries as I can, expanding trade and investment, as you’ve seen us do over the last 18 months, and we’ll continue to do so. 

    Media:      Just on that pivot to Bollywood that you were talking about, what sort of reaction did you get over in India when you were talking about potentially New Zealand being a bit more of a hub for those sort of movies? 

    PM:           Really positive. I mean, they have made movies here in New Zealand in the last 20 years or so, and my question to them was: what else would it take for you to do more productions here in New Zealand? And they’re very, very open to it. I mean, there’s a—

    Media:      What did they say to that? What would it take for them to do more? 

    PM:           Well, there are—there are things that we can—you know, obviously connectivity between India and New Zealand so that you can actually move kit and people in and out of the country in a much more seamless way, which is why air connectivity and air services become so important into the future as well. But no, they’re very open to it and it’s about us actually, often, in many cases, just making the case to the influencers and to the people. And that’s why I do these meetings is because, you know, they’ve got every other country in the world telling them why they’re a great place to come and do it. 

    You know, they know they get well supported here. They have really talented people to be able to work with in the productions here. Many New Zealanders in that sector are very much generalists—they are able to do many things, not just have the specialists—and therefore you often end up with smaller but much more efficient crews working on those productions. So, you know, I think there’s just a lot of opportunity for New Zealand. It is an amazing sector, as you all know, and a very important sector here for this city as well. 

    Media:      Prime Minister, is it appropriate for a Minister to frequently use their private e-mail accounts for ministerial business, including discussing policy ideas with members of the public? 

    PM:           Well, look, there’ll be times under the Cabinet Manual where, you know, people—Ministers will use personal e-mail or personal phone numbers, and that may be for a number of reasons. They may have received unsolicited emails. In many cases, I’m aware Ministers in the past have had technical issues around IT and printing materials. But what’s super important is that any materials are fully retained so that under an official information request, they’re actually available. 

    Media:      Are you comfortable with how often Erica Stanford is using her personal e-mail to conduct ministerial business? 

    PM:           Well, again, my office has spoken with her. I understand it’s been very few occasions. What I’d say is that she has had tech issues with printing. That’s a good example. I’m aware Ministers in the previous Government had the same—used personal emails in the same way. I’m very relaxed with the fact—

    Media:      One News has two folders with hundreds of pages that includes documents and emails that she has been sending and receiving from her private e-mail. Does that sound like very limited instances? 

    PM:           Well, again, as I said, I’m very relaxed about it. The reality is, you know, she has—you know, she’s received unsolicited emails, she’s had printing issues, she’s had tech issues. She’s made changes subsequently, she’s got the IT support that she needs in place and I’m very comfortable with it. I think she’s doing a great job. 

    Media:      She also sent sensitive Budget documents, ahead of them being announced publicly, to her Gmail account. Is that appropriate? 

    PM:           Well, again, I just say to you there will be moments under the Cabinet Manual where it’s quite acceptable for Ministers to use their personal—

    Media:      Is that [Inaudible] Budget documents before they’re released publicly?

    PM:            Well, there may well be if it’s printing purposes, if it’s—if there’s—because there’s technical reasons. As I understand it, in her case it’s actually been about printing challenges. She’s actually made the changes in the settings that she needed to, which has been good and really advisable, and I think that’s a really good thing. But I’m very relaxed about it. 

    Media:      Do you trust Gmail as a secure platform when people, Ministers, are sending Budget details? 

    PM:           Well, I’ll just say to you I think, you know, there are moments when you may well use your personal accounts for—in order for printing and for receiving unsolicited emails, right? 

    Media:      But it’s not as secure, [Inaudible].

    Media:      Is there no tech support in the building to sort out a printer problem?

    PM:           She’s made—she’s made subsequent changes to her processes of how to do that. She’s got the right IT support in place now. I’m really comfortable about it. 

    Media:      She’s a Minister of the Crown. How was there not tech support available for that? This is the Beehive. 

    PM:           Sorry? 

    Media:      How was there not tech support available for printing? It’s the Beehive. 

    PM:           I think if you go back and look at the last administration, Chris Hipkins was an example of a Minister who used his personal accounts for printing materials that he might need as well. So that’s what I’m saying, there’s been a—there’s a history of where, occasionally—

    Media:      So you think it’s OK?

    PM:           No, on—occasionally, under the Cabinet Manual, it’s quite OK and quite acceptable that there will be moments in time where people might need to use their personal phones and emails in order for things like printing materials or IT tech support. In her case, she’s subsequently gone on and made changes which I think are advisable and are really appropriate that she’s done that, and made sure that she’s put in place some processes and changes around that.

    Media:      Every instance was for printing? If it’s hundreds of pages—

    PM:           Well, I’m saying that as an example of how you may end up using your personal accounts for those purposes. 

    Media:      The main directive of the Cabinet Manual is that Ministers don’t use their personal emails or mobile phone numbers, and Erica Stanford is frequently using her personal e-mail. Have you looked into it? Are you keen to look into that further? Is that appropriate? 

    PM:           Look, I’m super relaxed about it. I have to be honest about it. I’ve looked at the issue. Erica’s office has spoken to my office about it. She’s made the changes that she needed to make about the processes of which she engaged with unsolicited emails or—she did have printing issues, you know. That is a common thing that I’ve seen with other Ministers in previous administrations as well. Having said that, it’s advisable what she has done to put in place checks to make sure that she’s managing it better going forward. And at the end of the day, you know, this is a Minister doing a brilliant job and a great job and, you know, I’m proud of the work she did just on this weekend doing the parental portal. 

    Media:      Prime Minister, just a couple of questions around Corrections. Do you support Mark Mitchell and his comments around wanting longer sentences as a way of trying to reduce re-offending? 

    PM:           Well, I think there’s two things going on there. One is I would say we definitely support longer sentences. That’s why we’ve, you know, had the sentencing discount legislation come through. That’s why we’ve got three strikes coming through and the work of Paul Goldsmith in that area. But once someone is in the Corrections facility it’s important that we do everything we can to get rehabilitation services to them, and all Mark’s doing is actually trying to understand where does the rehabilitation services work, and does term of service actually, you know, play into that or not, and how would we make sure we take the opportunity to actually make sure that we get the right rehabilitation services to the prisoners involved. 

    Media:      Have you seen or has Mark Mitchell put forward any evidence that supports that those two things—

    PM:           That’s the work that he’s kicked off, to have a look at what are the impacts of rehabilitation and does term of—length of time in the facility actually lead to better rehabilitation outcomes with longer run services or not. So that’s all he’s doing. All he’s doing is just looking at making sure our rehabilitation services—we want them to be deployed as much as possible to remand Corrections facilities, as you’ve seen, prisoners, and also those that have been sentenced. We want to get rehabilitation services out to as much as we can. 

    Media:      The end result in there, if you play it out, is potentially a lot more prisoners in prison for a longer amount of time, so how much money are you prepared to throw at more prison beds and more prison expenses? 

    PM:           Well, we’re interested in lowering crime. So the point, as you know, is that we’re quite comfortable with longer prison sentences. We have made changes with our legislation recently to do exactly that, on the sentencing discounts that we’ve stopped. But this is about—this is a separate piece of work. 

    Media:      It’s a blank cheque around prison beds and prison expansion, for the greater good and all that?

    PM:           Well, you don’t—you drive it through a principle and a value, which is that if people have offended, they need to make sure they’ve got a penalty that fits their offence. And the old model of just saying the only target we’ve got on crime is reducing prisoners—we actually want to reduce crime and we’re making some good progress on that. So how many prisoners we have and how long they’re in there will be a consequence of what happens with respect to crime in New Zealand. Sorry, last question for Jo here. 

    Media:      RNZ has been talking to staff at Palmerston North Hospital who don’t feel safe at work. There are reports of health workers getting abused and assaulted, including a nurse being held at gunpoint and another health worker knocked unconscious. They’d like hospital security guards to be given the same powers as those in Parliament and court, in order to be able to physically restrain people. Do you support that? 

    PM:           Well, look, we have supported an increase of security in emergency departments, as you know. It’s one of the first actions we took when we came to Government, and Dr Shane Reti implemented that. I’m very open to considering what more we can do to make sure our workers are safe. I’m not aware of that particular issue, but feel free to raise that with Simeon Brown. 

    Media:      Minister McClay, just on the—

    PM:           Jack, welcome back. I saw you on TV covering some electorates over the weekend. Well done. 

    Media:      Thank you. We’ll get to that later. But Minister McClay, just on the Trump tariffs, New Zealand had one of the best deals under the previous tariffs. That might not be the case anymore with this 100 percent on film production. What do you say to that, that New Zealand’s sort of getting a raw deal now as the tariff situation progresses? 

    Hon Todd McClay:    Well, New Zealand’s not being treated worse than other countries, as we see it at the moment. It seems that the new bottom tariff rate out of the US will be 10 percent. There’s no evidence yet—although we’ll see whether or not they, through negotiation, will fall below that. There’s some early anecdotal evidence from our exporters that they are seeing increased interest from the US in products from New Zealand. Some of that could be because, you know, tariff rates elsewhere in the world have been fluctuated so US importers haven’t got the certainty that they need. But I think, as the Prime Minister has said, in everything we do, we’ve got to get as much information as we can. So, for instance, the announcement over films that you have just asked about, we’re not yet sure exactly how it will be put in place—whether it’s complete films, parts of films, just technology to add to films and so on. So once we get more information following the social media posts, we’ll be in a better position to provide that. 

    Media:      When the US first announced tariffs, they got the figure wrong on the reciprocal number. Have you had strengthened communication with the United States? I know you’ve been doing deals around the world, but have you been focusing on the US? 

    Hon Todd McClay:    So we’ve had a lot of engagement. I expect to meet my counterpart, Jamieson Greer, in about two weeks’ time at the APEC Trade Ministers’ meeting in Korea. it will be my first opportunity to meet in person, although we have had a long Zoom call with each other. In effect, the way it has been clarified is it wasn’t the tariff rate they were speaking of, they’d just taken the imbalance in trade and applied that to the equivalent of a tariff. Irrespective of that, the lowest tariff rate put on any country was 10 percent, which is where we are. I actually think Australia had a better trade deal than we did because we haven’t got a trade deal, and they faced 10 percent as well. 

    Media:      Just on [Inaudible], Prime Minister, sorry, Anthony Albanese was asked at a press conference today about the world leaders that had congratulated him. He unfortunately left New Zealand off the list initially. In that conversation, were you not speaking slowly enough and simply enough for the Prime Minister to understand?

    PM:           Can I just tell you, in that conversation I reckon he was still in his pyjamas, as I said to him, and I reckon he had a very hoarse voice so it was very early in the morning of the night after, the day after. But, look, he’s a good friend. I mean, obviously you know he and I knew each other before I came to politics as well and we’ve got a good personal relationship and chemistry, and we talked about, you know, a little bit about the election and then into how we can continue to do the good work of Australia and New Zealand out there on the world stage together. 

    Media:      On Lake Alice, there’s court action at the moment saying that the redress system is breaching international law and also that $150,000 isn’t enough. Have you got a response to those survivors? 

    PM:           Look, what I’ll just say to you, I acknowledge Mr Richards’ decision to seek a judicial review. I’m in a position where it’s inappropriate for me to comment on those individual circumstances or cases. 

    Media:      [Inaudible] haven’t signed on to the redress system so far? 

    PM:           We are working through improving the redress system, as you know, and we’ll have—Erica Stanford will have something to say about that very soon. 

    Media:      Just for a colleague, on the international investigation last week revealing how Chinese authorities targeted families of Chinese dissidents and Uyghur advocates in New Zealand after they spoke out, were you briefed on that situation and do you have any concerns following that? 

    PM:           It’s not something that I’ve been specifically briefed on at this point, but I’ll follow up after this. 

    Media:      Sorry, just going back to those Budget documents that were sent to a Gmail, are you comfortable that it was only that one case? Are there any other ones that you are concerned about? 

    PM:           Look, all I’m just saying to you is that the Cabinet Manual says there—you know, we want Ministers to be able to use their work devices and obviously e-mail and phones, but there will be on occasion reasons for why they need to use their personal ones. As I said, in the past it’s been because of printing issues. In Erica’s position that’s largely been, as I understand, what it’s been about. There’s also unsolicited emails that we get through personal e-mail accounts, and that’s—she’s put in place now processes to make sure that actually that’s all handled properly and everything’s directed through her account. 

    Media:      [Inaudible] sensitive Budget documents. Are you comfortable with that being sent to Gmail?

    PM:           Yeah, look, I’m really comfortable with where—what—the changes that Erica’s made. Completely advisable. But I’m just saying to you, you know, I’m very relaxed about it, yeah.

    Media:      On the CPTPP and EU kind of idea, what’s the latest on that? Have you had any further talks with leaders and how much of this is firming up into a real plan, versus sort of at a blue sky thinking stage? 

    PM:           Well, look, I mean, I’ve spoken to many different leaders. I spoke to Mark Carney again yesterday as well, and I spoke to Lawrence Wong, obviously around their elections, but on this issue in general. All we’re—all I was saying there was that, you know, in a world where what we’ve got—you know, you think about the US trade bloc. It’s about 13 percent of global trade, from memory. You know, you’ve got the CPTPP and you’ve got EU, probably 30 percent plus of global trade. You know, what we want to make sure is that we have people reaffirm the trading rules so that when there are disputes between countries, we want to make sure that they are following and compliant with those rules, you know. We don’t need tit-for-tat tariffs between different trading blocs, for example, emerging. 

    So that’s the nature of the conversation that we’ve been having with leaders. And, you know, I think—you know, and whether it’s been ASEAN leaders or whether it’s been CPTPP leaders or EU leaders, it’s just been making sure that we all understand that we want to maintain the trading system and we want to make sure that we continue to operate within it, and that where there are disputes and mechanisms, that they’re used properly. 

    Media:      So in terms of the outcomes that you’re looking for here, is it just—on those leader-to-leader conversations—making sure everyone’s still on the same page, or is there something more that you had expected or are expecting to come out of this in terms of some sort of formal understanding?  

    PM:           My immediate focus is to make sure that everyone’s staying cool, calm and collected through it, everybody’s making sure that we reaffirm the trading-based system so that we actually don’t get blocs going to war with each other as a consequence of the instability in the tariff situation globally, and just reassuring and making sure that everyone’s reassured around that. I spoke, as I said, to the Irish Prime Minister. I spoke to Keir Starmer about it. I spoke to Ursula von der Leyen and other leaders as well about it, and I think there’s very good alignment across the system to make sure that that doesn’t break down. 

    Media:      Prime Minister, do you believe that one of the factors in the Canadian and the Australian election wins was a backlash against Trump’s policies?

    PM:           No, what I believe it was about was—as I think about the Singaporean election, where the popular vote went up, when I think about the Australian election and the Canadian election, there were some different dynamics in each of those elections, obviously, but for me what it really is about is people wanting to endorse incumbent governments that actually have strong economic management in very uncertain times, and actually that’s what I think our Government’s done very well. We’ve been very focused from day one. You’ve heard me say it. Rebuild the economy to lower the cost of living. That’s what our task has been about, and actually we’ve got commercially literate, economically literate leadership in place in New Zealand in a very difficult and challenging time. So I think that’s really about strong economic management. Now, when you see the parties that have lost, it’s because they’ve been focused on things that actually haven’t mattered to the population. You’ve got to be able to be focused, you know, ruthlessly on lowering the cost of living. That’s what people care about. 

    Media:      Can you break that down in the Australian example? Are you saying that the left-leaning Labour Party are the strong economic managers, and the right-leaning, broad-church Liberal Party are not? 

    PM:           Well, I’m not commenting on the individual elections. I’m just saying to you when I look at, you could argue, a centre-right Government in Singapore that increased its vote because it’s got strong economic management in very uncertain times, which you heard Prime Minister Wong talk to—likewise, you see what’s happened in the UK, where a Conservative Government didn’t focus on the economics and manage the economy well. I think of Liz Truss and the damage that was done to the Conservative Party there. So I’m just saying it’s too simplistic to go, “It’s a centre-left or centre-right argument”. It’s actually about incumbent governments that have strong economic management. When the public’s feeling anxiety about global uncertainty, they want to know that there’s great leadership in place that can navigate them through that. 

    Media:      [Inaudible] the losers in those election results had been distracted by other things, so is it fair to say that the Libs in Australia were distracted by other things—

    PM:           Well, I’m not—

    Media:      —and would you categorise some of that as being about some of the Trump-like policies they were driving? 

    PM:           Well, no, all I’m saying to you is, as a leader of a political party in a coalition Government here in New Zealand, it’s very important that we are focused on the things that New Zealanders care about, and we are. And the number one thing that they care about, and you hear all the time, is about the economy and cost of living. That is the number one concern. That’s why it’s been—you know, you get sick of me talking about it, I know you guys do, but that’s why I’ve been banging on about the economy from day one, because that’s the thing that makes the single biggest difference to the people out there. That’s what they care about. And so all you’re seeing with those election results and those three over the last week is essentially, you know, the public, quite rightly, want their politicians focused on delivering for them and making their life better. And we do that by focusing on the economy, getting more money into their back pocket. 

    Media:      Prime Minister, Toitū Te Tiriti rōpū have been granted an urgent hearing in front of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Regulations Standards Bill. How concerned are you that the claimants—there’s 12,000 claimants to be heard in that claim. 

    PM:           Well, we’ll have more to say about the Regulatory Standards Bill. As you know, it’s on our quarterly action plan and we’ll talk about that in due course, but it would be premature for me to talk about that. 

    Media:      How concerned are you, though, that this could be as big as the hīkoi on the Treaty Principles Bill? 

    PM:           Well, again, we’ll go through a process about—you know, the objective of that Bill is to make sure we make better regulation in New Zealand. That’s what that’s about. And so, you know, let’s let that play out and go through the normal process, where I’m sure there’ll be submissions and feedback on the Bill as it goes through a select committee process. But it’s a bit too premature to jump to that conclusion. 

    Media:      Going through the process then, will you be voting it down at second reading? 

    PM:           Well, no, we’re going through a process. A Bill will get produced and go to a first reading. 

    Media:      I thought it was the same process as the Treaty Principles Bill. No? 

    PM:           Sorry, I don’t understand your question. 

    Media:      The Government’s support, the National Party’s support of the Regulatory Standards Bill. 

    PM:           No, we’re committed to delivering a Regulatory Standards Bill into law here in New Zealand, but we’ve got a process to work through. The Bill is about making sure this is—you know, that Governments make good regulation and that we make better rules and better laws and better—and do that policy development in a much better way. And so, you know, we need to let that Bill go through the process as it normally would, exactly as Fast Track did, as other Bills that we’ve gone through as a Government. We’ve worked our way through it. 

    Media:      Prime Minister, just back to Mark’s questions around chatting to world leaders around trade and stability there, have you had a chance to talk to Winston Peters further about this and your Government’s strategy, how you’re going to— 

    PM:           I think what you’re all misunderstanding is that there are four Ministers that have been working really closely together from day one, and we come together as a small group—in fact, we’re meeting again this week—and that is myself, obviously, as Prime Minister, Winston, obviously, as Foreign Minister, Judith as Defence Minister and Todd as Trade Minister. And in all of these conversations, which obviously have overlapping areas, we work really, really closely together. So we have conversations all the time on all of these issues and we’ll continue to do so. So we’re very aligned on what we’re trying to achieve. We’re trying to lift the intensity, the urgency and the relevancy of New Zealand with our partners, with the benefit of expanding defence and security, making sure that we can drive trade and investment, and making sure we have good standing with—and good reputation with all partners. 

    Media:      Sorry, just to follow up, I understand that you obviously meet regularly and that you’re on the same page there at a high level, but it was the Foreign Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister who raised specifically how you were doing that and whether the steps were being discussed.

    PM:           Look, I think I spoke about that ad nauseum several weeks ago when you first raised it. 

    Media:      Sure. 

    PM:           I’m just saying to you we know exactly what we’re doing and we’re very much in sync and lined up on all of this stuff. 

    Media:      On Lake Alice, the Attorney-General is named as a defendant on that case. I understand you can’t speak about the substance of the case, but has Judith Collins either recused herself or have you asked her to put in place any kind of management around response to the state abuse— 

    PM:           Look, I’m not going to get into the case and I—

    Media:      I’m sorry, I’m not asking you to get into the case.  

    PM:           Yeah, no, I get that. I understand. 

    Media:      Yeah. In terms of managing her conflict there, as she is now named as a—

    PM:           Any conflicts are well managed within our Government, yeah.

    Media:      And how is that being managed in this case?

    PM:           Again, I’m not going to go into detail with that now. Suffice to say that there’s an issue before the courts. We’ll let that complainant go through that process and we will manage any conflicts that are a result of that. 

    Media:      Prime Minister, with the respect to the CCCFA reform, the Government’s making the choice to retrospectively legislate, which is unusual. Aren’t you running the risk of looking as if the Government is favouring the Australian banks over New Zealand borrowers by doing so? What’s the rationale? 

    PM:           Look, again, I would encourage you to talk to Scott Simpson about the CCCFA because it’s quite a technical question and I think in fairness, as the Minister—

    Media:      You’re not aware of the Cabinet position? 

    PM:           No, I’m well aware of the Cabinet position, but what I’m saying to you is I also hold my Ministers accountable and I expect them to answer technical questions. If you want—

    Media:      [Inaudible] so unusual, I would have thought that you would have a view. 

    PM:           Well, no, we’re quite comfortable with it in this process. As I said, we passed this through the Cabinet. We discussed it. The CCCFA was a total dog’s breakfast from the previous administration, designed to clamp down on predatory lending and ended up actually squeezing a whole bunch of liquidity for people trying to access funding for mortgages. Getting asked how much you’re spending on Netflix, how much coffee you’re having, what sort of pet food you use; all of that stuff is not what it’s about. 

    Media:      [Inaudible] is retrospective legislation which would effectively kill off a piece of class action which has been underway for six years or so, and which starts with legislation which was effectively put in place by [Inaudible]—

    PM:           Yeah, again, I’ll just direct you to Scott Simpson if you want to talk about that. 

    Media:      The only benefactors of what Peter is talking about are the two Australian banks. Why, in the climate and given all of the rhetoric that has been going on around clamping down on banks, would the Government want to put themselves in a position where the banks get off scot-free? 

    PM:           Well, again, you know, we’re fixing the CCCFA, given the mess that it created, and we’ve made that decision as a Cabinet. If you want to direct technical questions, can I just suggest you talk to Scott Simpson about it? 

    Media:      It’s a very simple question. From a Government that has taken a very strong position on things like supermarkets, banks—you’ve made these inquiries and investigations—you have a situation in front of you where two Australian-owned banks who make significant, billion-dollar profits are the only people that are going to benefit from this retrospective legislation. Why would your Government want to take that position?

    PM:           No, we’re fixing legislation because of liquidity challenges, where regular people couldn’t get mortgages for their housing because something that was designed to deal with predatory lending has ended up creating, you know, an unintended or intended consequence or unintended consequence. So there’s a lot more going on in the legislation reset than just what you’re talking about. 

    Media:      The people who brought this class action might be facing their own liquidity challenges, and your retrospective legislation is effectively allowing hundreds of millions of dollars of money that they’re owed to go to Australian—

    PM:           Sorry guys, I’m not going to get into it. I’ll let you talk to Scott Simpson and he can go through the details with you. 

    Media:      But as a principle of natural justice and the rule of law, shouldn’t Cabinet have a position on the rightness of retrospectively legislating hundreds of millions of dollars away that people are owed in New Zealand? 

    PM:           Look, we’ve had our Cabinet conversation, this decision we’ve made and we’re comfortable with it. If you want to ask technical questions, go to Scott Simpson. OK, team—

    Media:      Did you have all the information when you made that decision—

    PM:           Yes. 

    Media:      —and are you going to go back and look at it at all? 

    PM:           We had all the decisions, and again, direct the questions to Scott. Right, last question. 

    Media:      Just back to Erica Stanford again, you’ve dismissed most of it as a printing issue, but if she was discussing policy ideas with members of the public from a personal e-mail account, do you not see that as problematic? 

    PM:           What is problematic is when materials from personal e-mail accounts are not retained for official information purposes. That is the problem. And so, in this case, as I—you know, all those materials—I’m not aware of any materials not having been retained and any official information requests that actually ask for those emails, they’ve been provided, as I understand it. 

    Media:      Is it a fact that she has been discussing policy issues with members of the public, and does that extend to budget-sensitive information? 

    PM:           Well, there is unsolicited e-mail correspondence that happens from, you know, relationships that she will have through—that come through a private e-mail account. Again, she’s now put in place mechanisms to make sure that actually that is managed more appropriately going forward. I think that is appropriate. She’s got technical fixes that actually help support that. That’s a good thing. OK. 

    Media:      On Sir Brian Roche—

    PM:           On Sir Brian Roche, yeah. 

    Media:      On Sir Brian Roche taking over the teachers’ negotiations, do you think he’ll do a better job than the Ministry would, and do you want to see him do collective negotiations more throughout the public service? 

    PM:           I’m a big supporter of more centralised bargaining, yeah, done through the PSC.

    Media:      Has she discussed budget-sensitive information with members of the public before it’s public? 

    PM:           Again—

    Media:      Stuart Nash got sacked for that. 

    PM:           Yeah, I’m just saying to you—no, I’m just saying to you it’s quite appropriate through the Cabinet Manual that actually people may use their personal e-mail accounts and phone numbers for conversations, but those materials have to be retained. They have been retained. They are available for official information requests. That’s the important thing here. OK. All right, guys. Thanks so much. 

    conclusion of press conference

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Get ready to book your Great Walk

    Source: Department of Conservation

    Date:  06 May 2025

    “The most-loved experiences during peak times such as the holidays tend to book up quickly, but there’s plenty to choose from across the network,” DOC Heritage and Visitor Director Catherine Wilson says.

    DOC has upgraded its booking system ready for Great Walks 2025/26 bookings, which open from 15 May 2025.

    Catherine Wilson says people booking Great Walks will notice some changes this year.

    “We’ve introduced a new industry-leading lobby system, similar to those used by concert-booking companies, so customers have a smoother experience, and we can better manage the very high demand when bookings first open.”

    Catherine Wilson says opening dates are staggered – ten Great Walks 15 to 28 May, huts campsites and lodges 13 May to 4 June – to give people making multiple bookings a better chance of securing their preferred slot.

    “We’ve re-shuffled the booking schedule* to balance demand across the weeks so the Kepler, Heaphy and Rakiura Great Walks open first on Wednesday 15 May, and the exceptionally popular Milford Track will open last on Wednesday 28 May.

    “While the most popular Great Walks such as Milford and Routeburn book out very fast on the day, there are often cancellations so it’s worth keeping an eye on the booking website. Other experiences, such as Abel Tasman and Heaphy have more capacity and don’t generally book out on opening day.” 

    On opening morning, users logging into their DOC account will be redirected to the lobby and assigned a number. At 9.30 am the queue will start to move steadily into the booking system. 

    “We continue to ask users to be patient when booking. New Zealand’s Great Walks face massive demand with close to 100,000 people booking a Great Walk annually, 35% of whom are international visitors,” says Catherine Wilson.

    “We’re lucky to have stunning mountains, forests, beaches, parks, lakes and rivers on our doorstep, and incredible tracks, huts and campsites for people to enjoy them.” 

    The Great Walks vary in their length, challenge, and the necessary skills and fitness required. Walkers are encouraged to read about the options on DOC’s website and pick the Great Walk best suited to their skills and experience.

    As part of regular price reviews, customers may notice price increases at some facilities next season.

    Price increases range between 5-15% for the Milford, Routeburn, Kepler, Abel Tasman Coast Track, and Paparoa Great Walks and several high-demand huts and cottages. Some of DOC’s standard and serviced campsites have increased by $3-$5 per person per night.

    User charges contribute to the running costs of DOC’s recreation network, Catherine Wilson says.

    “User fees are an increasingly important tool for improving the financial sustainability of the visitor network.

    “New Zealand has a huge variety of DOC facilities with price points for all budgets. Just make sure you book huts, campsites, and cottages early to secure popular dates and times,” says Catherine Wilson.

    For information on DOC’s pricing changes and to book, visit DOC huts, campsites and cottages.

    Bookings for Tongariro Northern Circuit are on hold while DOC assesses plans for replacing Oturere Hut.

    To book the Hump Ridge Track visit . Bookings can be made anytime. The Hump Ridge Track’s walking season is 25 October 2024 to 21 April 2025.

    Contact

    For media enquiries contact:

    Email: media@doc.govt.nz

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC) announced a joint call for Proposals on Bio-AI for establishing मूलांकुर hubs under BioE3 Policy for Biomanufacturing

    Source: Government of India

    Posted On: 05 MAY 2025 4:57PM by PIB Delhi

    The Union Cabinet approved the BioE3 (Biotechnology for Economy, Environment, & Employment) Policy, in August 2024, for ‘Fostering High-Performance Biomanufacturing’ across the country.  Subsequently, The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, approved continuation of the two umbrella schemes of Department of Biotechnology (DBT), merged as one scheme-‘Biotechnology Research Innovation and Entrepreneurship Development (Bio- RIDE)’ with a new component namely Biomanufacturing and Biofoundry. With in the ambit of “High -Performance Biomanufacturing”, establishment of Bio-AI hubs for building of  data driven and cutting edge paradigms  in the areas of Health, Agriculture and Environment.

    Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC) have issued a Joint Call for Proposals on Bio-AI for establishing मूलांकुर hubs under BioE3 Policy for Biomanufacturing.  Bio-AI hubs are proposed to be established across academia and industry to provide critical and novel research leads impacting Health, Agriculture and Environment through conglomeration of AI and Biology.

    The Letter of Intent (LoI) for Bio-AI is uniquely designed to utilize AI in Biology for solving key biological challenges in Biomolecular Design, Sustainable Agriculture, Synthetic Biology, Ayurveda and Genome Diagnostics. Therefore, the problem statements in these domains as well as possible research solutions are invited from multi-disciplinary teams with research expertise across fields of synthetic biology, AI/ML and Computation to address complex biological research challenges. The problem statements are to be addressed by data-driven, cutting-edge, multi-disciplinary programmatic research initiatives for projected outcomes.

     

    ***

    NKR/PSM

    (Release ID: 2127063) Visitor Counter : 63

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Shaheen Joins Senior Senate Colleagues in Demanding Investigation into Elon Musk’s Alleged Abuse of White House Position for Personal Gain

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen
    **Shaheen introduced new legislation last month that would prevent Special Government Employees like Musk from receiving federal contracts or grant payments to companies they own**
    (Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a top member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, on Friday joined several of her high-ranking Senate officials in sending a letter to President Trump to demand an investigation into recent reports that Elon Musk—senior White House advisor and Special Government Employee—has used his role to advance personal business interests abroad. In the letter led by U.S. Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the lawmakers reference an alarming pattern in which Musk allegedly utilized influence in the  policy making process to pressure foreign governments—including India, South Africa, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Pakistan and Lesotho—into granting favorable treatment to his satellite internet provider Starlink in apparent exchange for U.S. policy concessions.  
    Last month, Shaheen unveiled new legislation that would prevent federal contracts or grant payments to companies owned or controlled by any person who became a Special Government Employee on or after January 1, 2025. 
    The Senators wrote, in part: “Public servants must serve Americans, not their own bank accounts. These alleged actions are an egregious breach of public trust, degrade our credibility with allies and partners, and potentially violate U.S. laws.”  
    The letter details instances of Musk meeting with foreign leaders – including those from India and Bangladesh – inside the White House complex and the Blair House, shortly before their governments fast-tracked regulatory approvals for Starlink. In one example, the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission issued what was described as “the swiftest recommendation” in its history for a Starlink license shortly after officials requested a delay in U.S.-imposed tariffs and met with Musk on White House grounds. 
    The Senators continued: “The White House and the Blair House are not merely buildings – they are enduring symbols of American democracy and service. To use this public property for personal enrichment is not only a betrayal of the public trust – it also sends a dangerous signal that power is not a solemn responsibility, but an asset to be exploited for personal gain.” 
    They concluded: “Brazen corruption of that sort is seen in despotic regimes, not the United States of America. We call for you to investigate these claims about Musk and to make public any findings. And we call for an accounting to Congress of Musk and his associates’ use of government positions for personal benefit.” 
    Click here to view the letter. 
    In addition to Shaheen and Warner, the letter was signed by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; Ron Wyden (D-OR), Ranking Member, Senate Finance Committee; Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee; Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ranking Member, Senate Budget Committee; Jack Reed (D-RI), Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee; Chris Coons (D-DE), Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense; Brian Schatz (D-HI), Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs; Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship; Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works; Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ranking Member, Senate Agriculture Committee; and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

    May 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA News: Regulatory Relief to Promote Domestic Production of Critical Medicines

    Source: The White House

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

    Section 1.  Purpose.  During my first term, my Administration took unprecedented action to improve the well-being of the American people by restoring capacity for domestic production of critical pharmaceutical products.  Notably, in Executive Order 13944 of August 6, 2020 (Combating Public Health Emergencies and Strengthening National Security By Ensuring Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures, and Critical Inputs Are Made In The United States), I directed each executive department and agency involved in the procurement of Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures, and Critical Inputs to take a variety of actions to increase their domestic procurement of Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures, and Critical Inputs, as defined in section 7 of that order, and to identify vulnerabilities in our Nation’s supply chains for these products.  Unfortunately, the prior administration did too little to advance these goals.  Critical barriers and information gaps persist in establishing a domestic, resilient, and affordable pharmaceutical supply chain for American patients.

    One key area of concern is the length of time it takes to build pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities in the United States today.  New construction must navigate myriad Federal, State, and local requirements ranging from building standards and zoning restrictions to environmental protocols that together diminish the certainty needed to generate investment for large manufacturing projects.  For pharmaceutical manufacturing, these barriers are heightened by unannounced inspections of domestic manufacturers by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which are more frequent than such inspections at international facilities.  Industry estimates suggest that building new manufacturing capacity for pharmaceuticals and critical inputs may take as long as 5 to 10 years, which is unacceptable from a national security standpoint.  Even expanding existing capacity or modifying existing production lines to produce new or different products requires extensive permitting and regulatory approval, making it more difficult to repurpose existing underutilized pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity available domestically.

    It is in the best interest of the Nation to eliminate regulatory barriers to the domestic production of the medicines Americans need.  My Administration will work to make the United States the most competitive nation in the world for the manufacture of safe and effective pharmaceutical products.

    Sec. 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States that the regulation of manufacturing pharmaceutical products and inputs be streamlined to facilitate the restoration of a robust domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing base.

    Sec. 3.  Streamlining Review of Domestic Pharmaceutical Manufacturing by the Food and Drug Administration.  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (FDA Commissioner), shall review existing regulations and guidance that pertain to the development of domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing and shall take steps to eliminate any duplicative or unnecessary requirements in such regulations and guidance; maximize the timeliness and predictability of agency review; and streamline and accelerate the development of domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing.  The FDA Commissioner’s review shall encompass all regulations and guidance that apply to the inspection and approval of new and expanded manufacturing capacity, emerging technologies that enable the manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, active pharmaceutical ingredients, key starting materials, and associated raw materials in the United States.  The FDA Commissioner shall:

    (a)  evaluate the current risk-based approach to prior approval of licensure inspections, including when such inspections are necessary, and seek to improve upon this approach to ensure all required inspections are prompt, efficient, and limited to what is necessary to ensure compliance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other Federal law;

    (b)  identify and undertake measures necessary to expand, as practicable, existing programs that provide early technical advice before a facility is operational;

    (c)  identify and undertake measures necessary to improve enforcement of data reporting under section 510(j)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360(j)(3)), including consideration of publicly displaying the list of facilities, including foreign facilities, that are not in compliance;

    (d)  provide clearer guidance regarding the requirements or recommendations for site changes, including moving production from a foreign to domestic facility, and validation of new or updated components necessary in manufacturing; and

    (e)  review and, as appropriate, seek to update any other relevant compliance policies, guidance documents, and regulations.

    Sec. 4.  Enhancing Inspection of Foreign Manufacturing Facilities.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the FDA Commissioner shall develop and advance improvements to the risk-based inspection regime that ensures routine reviews of overseas manufacturing facilities involved in the supply of United States medicines, which shall be funded by increased fees on foreign manufacturing facilities to the extent consistent with applicable law.  Additionally, the FDA Commissioner shall publicly disclose the annual number of inspections that the FDA conducts on such foreign facilities, with specific detail by country and by manufacturer. 

    Sec. 5.  Streamlining Review of Domestic Pharmaceutical Manufacturing by the Environmental Protection Agency.  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall take action to update regulations and guidance that apply to the inspection and approval of new and expanded manufacturing capacity of pharmaceutical products, active pharmaceutical ingredients, key starting materials, and associated raw materials in the United States to eliminate any duplicative or unnecessary requirements and maximize the timeliness and predictability of agency review.

    Sec. 6.  Centralized Coordination of Environmental Permits to Expand Domestic Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Capacity.  For purposes of 42 U.S.C. 4336a, the EPA shall be the lead agency for the permitting of pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities that require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., unless that role is assumed by another agency.  The lead agency shall designate a single point of contact within the agency to coordinate with permit applicants.  The Office of Management and Budget shall coordinate with the lead agency and with other relevant agencies and the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Committee, as needed, to expedite the review and approval of relevant permits.

    Sec. 7.  Streamlining Review of Domestic Pharmaceutical Manufacturing by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, shall review the nationwide permits issued under section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1344) and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) to determine whether an activity-specific nationwide permit is needed to facilitate the efficient permitting of pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities.

    Sec. 8.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    (d)  The Department of Health and Human Services shall provide funding for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

                                 DONALD J. TRUMP

    THE WHITE HOUSE,

        May 5, 2025.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    May 6, 2025
←Previous Page
1 … 109 110 111 112 113 … 277
Next Page→
NewzIntel.com

NewzIntel.com

MIL Open Source Intelligence

  • Blog
  • About
  • FAQs
  • Authors
  • Events
  • Shop
  • Patterns
  • Themes

Twenty Twenty-Five

Designed with WordPress