Category: KB

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Toxic waste water from chemical tankers released into the Baltic Sea – E-001265/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission addresses marine pollution through Directive 2008/56/EC[1] which requires Member States to achieve good environmental status in marine waters.

    International standards under the MARPOL Convention[2], particularly Annex II on noxious liquid substances, aim at preventing discharges of polluting substances and are implemented in the EU by Directive 2005/35/EC[3].

    This directive was recently amended[4] to enhance satellite surveillance, improve information exchange, and strengthen enforcement efforts.

    Member States are responsible for monitoring and penalising illegal discharges, and the Commission supports these efforts through fostering collaboration between them.

    At the International Maritime Organisation, the Commission supports its Member States by coordinating the EU position in discussions to improve tank washing procedures globally and reduce the environmental impact of chemical discharges[5] as well as of Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems discharges[6].

    Also, specifically for the Baltic Sea, the EU was involved in drafting Helcom recommendations[7] for port reception facilities where noxious liquid substances are unloaded to receive the tank washings resulting from the application of pre-wash procedures.

    The Commission is pursuing broader measures to address marine pollution[8] and is planning new initiatives under the upcoming Ocean Pact strengthening inter alia the EU’s commitment to protecting marine ecosystems[9]. The Commission recently evaluated the directive 2008/56/EC[10], regularly monitors its implementation[11] and is considering the need for additional measures to strengthen it.

    • [1] Marine Strategy Framework Directive — Directive 2008/56/EC (OJ L 164 25.6.2008, p. 19).
    • [2] International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.
    • [3] Directive 2005/35/EC as regards ship-source pollution and on the introduction of administrative penalties for infringements (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p.11).
    • [4]  Directive (EU) 2024/3101 as regards ship-source pollution (OJ L, 2024/3101, 16.12.2024).
    • [5] 12th session of the sub-committee on Pollution Prevention and Response. 27-31 January 2025. Amendments to MARPOL Annex II in order to improve the effectiveness of cargo tank stripping, tank washing operations and prewash procedures for products with a high melting point and/or high viscosity. Experience in Europe with regard to the effectiveness of MARPOL Annex II amendments for products with a high melting point and/or high viscosity (PPR 12/4).
    • [6] The International Maritime Organisation approved in 2019, a new item work-stream on the ‘Evaluation and harmonisation of rules and guidance on the discharge of liquid effluents from of Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (EGCS also known as scrubbers) into waters, including conditions and areas’. 2026 is the target completion year.
    • [7] Helcom Recommendation 10/5, Guidelines for the establishment of adequate reception facilities in ports.
    • [8] Directive (EU) 2024/3019 concerning urban wastewater treatment (OJ L, 2024/3019, 12.12.2024); Directive (EU) 2024/1785 on industrial emissions (OJ L, 2024/1785, 15.7.2024); Directive (EU) 2016/802 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels (OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, p. 58-78).
    • [9] Ocean Pact https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14474-The-European-Oceans-Pact_en.
    • [10] Evaluation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (SWD(2025) 50 final).
    • [11] Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Commission’s assessment of the Member States’ programmes of measures as updated under Article 17 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) (COM/2025/3 final).
    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Far-right intimidation at a trial in Budapest – E-001279/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    Publishing online photos and names of members of the audience attending a court hearing and sharing any lists of such attendees constitutes processing of personal data, which must fulfil the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)[1], including the need for a valid legal basis for the processing, such as the data subject’s informed and freely given consent .

    The monitoring and enforcement of the application of the GDPR in the Member States falls in the competence of national authorities, in particular data protection authorities and courts .

    Without prejudice to its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission is not in a position to investigate individual cases of alleged violations of the GDPR or national data protection provisions implementing it.

    The Commission promotes and protects fundamental rights by ensuring that legislative, policy and administrative measures falling under EU competence comply with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

    However, the Commission has no general powers to intervene with the Member States in the area of fundamental rights. It can only do so if an issue of EU law is involved.

    Moreover, issues related to publicity and security during trials such as the one at hand are not regulated under EU law, and are therefore left to the discretion of the Member States.

    It is for Member States to ensure that fundamental rights are effectively respected and protected in accordance with their national legislation and international human rights obligations, such as those stemming from the European Convention on Human Rights.

    The isolated incident referred to in the question is not directly related to judicial independence.

    • [1] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1-88.
    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Chinese companies suspected of corruption carrying out European Global Gateway projects – E-001172/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The eligibility rules applicable to procurement contractors under Global Gateway are laid down in Regulation (EU) 2021/947[1]. Accordingly, when the Commission implements EU funds directly or through partner countries in indirect management, entities established in China are not eligible, unless China participates in the concerned EU-funded action as a donor or as a beneficiary of the action.

    When EU funds are implemented in indirect management with pillar-assessed entities[2], such entities apply their own eligibility rules on access to procurement. Therefore, depending on the rules of the pillar-assessed entities, companies established in China may be eligible.

    Where the procurement procedure is carried out by the Commission or by a partner country, the provisions on abnormally low tenders and foreign subsidies of the Financial Regulation[3] also apply.

    U nder the same legal framework, entities that are subject to a final judgment or final administrative decision finding them guilty of fraud, corruption, or any other crime or misconduct[4] shall be excluded from participating or implementing EU funds and they shall be rejected from a procurement award.

    Other related entities such as beneficial owners, affiliated entities, persons exercising powers of representation, decision or control, persons assuming liability for the excluded entity, etc. may also be excluded.

    In case of funds entrusted in indirect management to pillar-assessed entities and before signing contribution or guarantee agreements, the rules of the partners must have been positively assessed by the Commission, in accordance with the Financial Regulation[5], ensuring that implementing partners have, among others, equivalent rules for procurement and exclusion from access to funding.

    • [1] Regulation (EU) 2021/947 of 9 June 2021 establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International
      Cooperation Instrument — Global Europe, amending and repealing Decision No 466/2014/EU and repealing
      Regulation (EU) 2017/1601 and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 480/2009, OJ L 209, 14.6.2021, p. 1-78, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/947/oj.
    • [2] Such as the World Bank or other international finance institutions.
    • [3] Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast), OJ L, 2024/2509, 26.9.2024, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj.
    • [4] Article 138 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509.
    • [5] Article 157(4) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 .

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Europol’s cooperation with Libyan authorities – E-002104/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002104/2025
    to the Council
    Rule 144
    Özlem Demirel (The Left)

    A number of employees from Libya’s Criminal Police, Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Foreign Affairs have visited Europol, primarily in the context of the fight against migration. There are plans for further shadowing and training, including at Europol’s European Migrant Smuggling Centre.

    • 1.Which Libyan police authorities and ministries have visited Europol on the subject of ‘combating human trafficking and smuggling (and when), and what further visits are planned (and for when)?
    • 2.What kind of possible future cooperation with Europol was envisaged with these visits, and to what extent has this cooperation taken shape since?
    • 3.To what extent were the visits also undertaken with a view to setting up joint international investigation teams, a specialised team of criminal investigators in Libya or cooperation with Europol’s European Migrant Smuggling Centre, and what has been decided in this regard?

    Submitted: 26.5.2025

    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Impact of the Mobility Package and the Road Transport Agreement with Ukraine on the Polish transport sector – E-002109/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002109/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Marcin Sypniewski (ESN)

    The Polish transport sector, which is a major pillar of the country’s economy, is currently facing a serious crisis as a result of EU rules and growing competition from non-EU carriers, in particular from Ukraine. The introduction of the Mobility Package brings with it additional obligations and costs for carriers from Member States, while Ukrainian carriers are not subject to the same rules.

    Polish transport companies point to a growing competitive imbalance, a decline in orders and difficulties arising from the liberalisation of the Road Transport Agreement with Ukraine, which has been extended until the end of 2025.

    In this connection:

    • 1.Is the Commission conducting or planning to conduct an impact analysis of the implementation and application of the Mobility Package, with particular emphasis on its impact on the competitiveness and financial standing of transport businesses in Member States?
    • 2.What measures is the Commission taking or planning to take to protect the interests of businesses in countries such as Poland, which are particularly vulnerable to unfair competition from Ukrainian carriers not subject to EU rules?
    • 3.What are the Commission’s plans for the Road Transport Agreement with Ukraine post-2025, and does it envisage making changes to how it functions, if so, when and how does it intend to take into account the demands of Polish carriers, with a view to ensuring fair competition and level playing field in the EU’s common transport market?

    Submitted: 26.5.2025

    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Highlights – Public Hearing on Media Freedom and Journalist Protection – Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

    Source: European Parliament

    Media freedom © Image used under the license from Adobe Stock

    On 12 June, the LIBE Committee will host a Public Hearing on media freedom and the protection of journalists, focusing on the evolving challenges within the EU’s media legal framework.

    Independent media are key to democracy and the rule of law, but face growing threats. The event will address EU legal challenges and explore reforms to strengthen press freedom, safeguard journalists, and ensure media sustainability, focusing on challenges as disinformation, surveillance, and manipulation.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Micro-enterprises’ limited access to EU funds – E-002124/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002124/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Kosma Złotowski (ECR)

    Micro-enterprises, which make up over 90 % of all businesses in the EU, play a key role in creating jobs, supporting local economies and preserving traditional crafts and services. In many regions – particularly rural, mountainous and remote regions – they are at the heart of local economic activity, employing not only their owners, but often entire families and communities.

    However, micro-enterprises, especially those in traditional sectors such as skilled crafts, vehicle mechanics, local trade and small-scale production, face significant barriers in accessing EU funds, including the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund and national programmes co-financed with the EU. Issues include complicated application processes, high entry thresholds, the cost of project documents and a lack of systemic advisory support.

    • 1.What steps will the Commission take to simplify processes and criteria for micro-enterprises to access EU funds, especially in traditional sectors of the economy that do not directly relate to innovation, digitalisation and the green transition, but are still hugely important at social and local level?
    • 2.Is the Commission considering introducing special financial support instruments and simplified funding routes aimed exclusively at micro-enterprises that have limited access to advisory services and professional companies supporting the application process?
    • 3.What monitoring and analysis mechanisms are used to assess whether support from EU funds is also fairly reaching micro-enterprises?

    Submitted: 27.5.2025

    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Concerns about Chinese hacks of Deutsche Telekom and potential implications for the Commission’s IT infrastructure – E-002101/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002101/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Bart Groothuis (Renew)

    According to a blog post[1] by the cybersecurity company Eclectic IQ, a Chinese hacker group, UNC5221, is responsible for a hack of Germany’s largest telecommunications company, Deutsche Telekom, as well as its subsidiaries that provide IT services. The blog also reveals that this hacker group has targeted other strategic sectors in Europe.

    According to other sources, a subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom, T-Systems, also provides services to the Commission. T-Systems has even been designated as a ‘preferred supplier’ of the Commission for the provision of IT infrastructure. This raises serious questions about the security of the EU’s IT infrastructure.

    • 1.Is the Commission aware of this hack, has the Commission itself been affected, and what measures does the Commission take to manage such risks?
    • 2.Why are strategically sensitive hacks such as these not publicly disclosed, and does the Commission agree that silence about such breaches actually facilitates their continuation within Europe?
    • 3.What steps is the Commission taking towards the Chinese authorities in response to these attacks, and what additional measures is the Commission considering to prevent such attacks in the future?

    Submitted: 26.5.2025

    • [1] Büyükkaya, A., ‘China-Nexus Threat Actor Actively Exploiting Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile (CVE-2025-4428) Vulnerability’, EclecticIQ, 21 May 2025, https://blog.eclecticiq.com/china-nexus-threat-actor-actively-exploiting-ivanti-endpoint-manager-mobile-cve-2025-4428-vulnerability.
    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Frontex aircraft in third countries for the first time – E-002099/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002099/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Özlem Demirel (The Left)

    Frontex launched its first surveillance flights to take off from outside the EU from Tirana International Airport in Albania. The aircraft patrolled both Albanian and Montenegrin border areas, and images were beamed in real time to both the national authorities of the two countries and the Frontex headquarters in Warsaw. The border agency described this as a ‘new chapter’ enabling the early detection of irregular migration, more effective prevention of crime, and improved coordination of search and rescue operations.

    • 1.When did the operations begin, and how many flight hours are they expected to account for each year?
    • 2.Under which category do these flights fall (e.g. Frontex aerial surveillance service (FASS), multipurpose aerial service (MAS), joint operations), and which national authorities are involved?
    • 3.With what other third countries are negotiations under way for this kind of external operation, and what other operations are already in the pipeline?

    Submitted: 26.5.2025

    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – The key role of transatlantic cooperation in ensuring military mobility during the war in Ukraine – E-002097/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002097/2025
    to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
    Rule 144
    Michał Dworczyk (ECR)

    Almost a decade has passed since the EU turned its attention towards military mobility. However, the plans have not been backed up by funding. Poland and other countries on the eastern flank have repeatedly emphasised that transport infrastructure is an integral part of the security architecture.

    The events of 2022 confirmed this diagnosis. Military mobility has become a key element of the West’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The United States has played a particularly important role, rapidly redeploying its armed forces to Central and Eastern Europe and actively supporting Ukraine through arms deliveries and effective coordination of logistics routes. Only thanks to American logistical capabilities, military reserves and efficient command was possible to act quickly and effectively strengthen security in the region.

    The war in Ukraine has tested many of the assumptions underlying EU strategies. In practice, it was the Member States, NATO and the US that played a crucial role in responding to the crisis. My country has become a key hub for supporting Ukraine and European security.

    In light of the above:

    • 1.When planning new EU policies in the areas of defence policy and military mobility, does the Commission take into account the role played by the United States in the first weeks of the war in Ukraine?
    • 2.In the event of a new security crisis, would the EU today be able to carry out a large-scale deployment of troops and equipment on its own, without US support?
    • 3.In light of recent experiences and operational realities, is the requirement for a high percentage of EU-sourced components in the defence initiatives proposed by the Commission a realistic and strategically responsible approach towards allies who have proven to be crucial in times of crisis?

    Submitted: 26.5.2025

    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Influence of left-wing organisations on the list of safe countries of origin – E-002121/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002121/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Mary Khan (ESN), Petra Steger (PfE)

    At his LIBE hearing on 12 May 2025[1], Michael Schotter, Director in the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME), stated that the list of safe countries of origin at EU level is based on recommendations from the EU Asylum Agency, which in turn relies on information from the European External Action Service (EEAS) and UNHCR. The latter in particular increasingly acts as a lobby for a largely barrier-free immigration policy. This casts a doubt over the credibility of the ‘restrictive’ asylum policy announced by Commissioner Brunner. If the advice on policy-making is coming from organisations that are clearly pushing for mass migration, any promises of tightening will prove to be empty. If anything, it seems that Brussels is deliberately trying to replace national lists of safe countries of origin with centralised EU lists in order to ultimately undermine countries’ sustainable restrictive asylum policies.

    • 1.How will the Commission effectively strengthen asylum rules if it continues to seek advice from organisations like the UNHCR, which clearly pursue a mass migration agenda?
    • 2.What other external actors and NGOs currently have a direct or indirect influence on the process of establishing the list of safe countries of origin?
    • 3.Will the Commission take measures to ensure balanced ideological representation among the organisations involved in the process of assessing safe countries of origin in future?

    Submitted: 27.5.2025

    • [1] https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/webstreaming/libe-committee-meeting_20250512-1500-COMMITTEE-LIBE
    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Latest news – Meeting on the situation of disabled Palestinians in the oPt – 05/06/2025 – Delegation for relations with Palestine

    Source: European Parliament

    The meeting of the delegation took place in Brussels, on Thursday, 5 June 2025 at 10:00 – 11:30 and was devoted to an exchange of views on the situation of disabled Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories with:

    • MsMilena Ansari, Palestinian lawyer and Human Rights Watch researcher based in Jerusalem
    • Ms Nadia Hadad, from European Disability Forum Executive Committee
    • Ms Shatha Abusrour and Mr Mohammed Al-Arabi, Palestinian disability right activists

    The meeting was webstreamed through the European Parliament’s Multimedia Centre.

    Interpretation services were available in English, French, Italian, and Arabic

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Heavy metal pollution in the estuary of the Guadalquivir and shortcomings in EU water legislation – E-002123/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002123/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Jaume Asens Llodrà (Verts/ALE)

    Recent studies by the universities of Granada, Cádiz and Seville revealed high levels of heavy metals in sediment from the estuary of the River Guadalquivir(Andalusia, Spain) and that they have had ecotoxic effects. They have come from the copper mine in Las Cruces, which has been labelled strategic by the EU but was previously condemned for contaminating an aquifer with arsenic. What is more, metals, particularly lead, have been found to have bioaccumulated in fish near the discharge area. This state of affairs poses a serious threat to environmental health, public health and thousands of jobs in the Guadalquivir Estuary.

    It also shows shortcomings in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), particularly in the prevention of pollution by mined toxic metals and metaloids. In Spain, metals are regulated in water, but not in sediment, which is where they usually accumulate.

    In the light of these findings:

    • 1.Does the Commission intend to revise that directive to include mandatory checks on metals in sediment and biota?
    • 2.Is it considering proposing a temporary moratorium on the discharge of mining waste into vulnerable basins like the Guadalquivir’s?
    • 3.What monitoring mechanisms has it set up to ensure that areas with intense mining activity remain in a good ecological state?

    Submitted: 27.5.2025

    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI: Sanborn announces Jared Martin is now General Manager of Mapping Division

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., June 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Sanborn Map Company, Inc. proudly announces Jared Martin as General Manager of the Mapping Division. A former Sanborn executive with more than a decade of leadership in geospatial operations, Martin has joined the company in a pivotal role aimed at driving geospatial strategy and operational excellence.

    As General Manager, Martin is responsible for overseeing the Mapping Division’s performance, enhancing cross-divisional collaboration, and ensuring the efficiency of mapping and surveying operations. His role includes directing strategic planning, resource development, team recruitment and training, and maintaining compliance with Sanborn’s high standards of quality and accountability. He also brings expertise in mapping regulations, proposal development, and financial analysis to support decision-making and long-term growth.

    “We are excited to welcome Jared back to Sanborn,” said Kate Hickey COO. “His operational expertise and familiarity with our clients make him uniquely positioned to drive innovation and efficiency across our Mapping Division.”

    Martin will also play a key role in stakeholder engagement and special projects that align with Sanborn’s goals in transportation, infrastructure, and remote sensing.

    Company Information

    The Sanborn Map Company, Inc. (Sanborn) is a leading geospatial solutions provider with over 150 years of experience supporting public and private sector clients. Sanborn specializes in high-resolution nadir and oblique imagery, lidar, geophysics, and geospatial data and analytics. The company also provides scalable staff augmentation for transportation, utilities, infrastructure, and emergency management. Sanborn’s airborne platforms enable efficient, wide-area data collection. With a focus on innovation, quality, and security, Sanborn delivers precise, actionable intelligence that supports resilient, data-driven decisions across a wide range of industries and applications.

    Release contact

    The Sanborn Map Company, Inc.
    information@sanborn.com

    A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/3945b54f-dc15-4dfe-b15b-c5eb0f32650b

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Bread Financial Announces Early Tender Results of Its Previously Announced Cash Tender Offer

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    COLUMBUS, Ohio, June 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bread Financial Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: BFH) (“Bread Financial” or the “Company”) announced that as of 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on June 4, 2025 (the “Early Participation Date”), pursuant to and in accordance with its previously announced cash tender offer (the “Tender Offer”), approximately $536,786,000 in aggregate principal amount of the Company’s 9.750% Senior Notes due 2029 (the “Notes”) had been validly tendered and not validly withdrawn on or prior to the Early Participation Date, which, if and when accepted for purchase up to $150,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of Notes (the “Tender Cap”) by the Company pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Tender Offer, would result in Total Consideration (as defined below) (excluding accrued interest payable) of $1,071.25 for each $1,000 principal amount of Notes, which Total Consideration was determined in accordance with the terms of the Tender Offer based on the principal amount of Notes tendered and the Bid Premiums (as defined in the Offer to Purchase (as defined below)) at which such tenders were made.

    Title of Security   CUSIP / ISIN   Aggregate
    Outstanding
    Principal
    Amount
      Aggregate
    Principal Amount
    Tendered(1)
      Aggregate Principal
    Amount Expected
    to be Accepted for
    Purchase(2)(3)
      Total
    Consideration(4)(5)
    9.750% Senior Notes due 2029           144A: 018581AP3 / US018581AP34   $900,000,000   $536,786,000   $149,988,000   $1,071.25
        Reg S: U01797AK2 / USU01797AK20                
        Reg S: U01797AL0 / USU01797AL03                

    _____________________

    (1) As of the Early Participation Date.
    (2) Subject to satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth in the Offer to Purchase, the Company anticipates that Notes will be accepted for purchase in accordance with the terms of the Tender Offer on June 9, 2025. However, there can be no assurance that the conditions set forth in the Offer to Purchase will be satisfied or waived.
    (3) In the case of Notes expected to be accepted for purchase on a prorated basis, the amounts set forth in the table reflect the Proration Factor (as defined below).
    (4) Per $1,000 principal amount of Notes accepted for purchase by the Company.
    (5) Includes the Early Participation Amount of $50.00 (as defined below).
       

    The Tender Offer is described in the Offer to Purchase, dated May 21, 2025 (as it may be amended or supplemented, the “Offer to Purchase”). As set forth in the Offer to Purchase, holders of Notes (“Holders”) who validly tendered and did not withdraw their Notes on or prior to the Early Participation Date, and whose Notes are accepted for purchase, will be entitled to receive the “Total Consideration,” which includes an early participation amount of $50.00 per $1,000 principal amount of Notes (the “Early Participation Amount”). In addition, accrued and unpaid interest will be paid on all Notes validly tendered (and not validly withdrawn) and accepted for purchase from the applicable last interest payment date to, but not including, the date on which the Notes are purchased.

    The Withdrawal Date (as defined in the Offer to Purchase) occurred at 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on June 4, 2025 and has not been extended. Therefore, Holders who validly tendered and did not validly withdraw their Notes at or prior to 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on June 4, 2025 may not withdraw their tendered Notes.

    Although the Tender Offer is scheduled to expire at 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on June 20, 2025, unless extended or terminated, because the aggregate principal amount of Notes validly tendered and not validly withdrawn on or prior to the Early Participation Date has exceeded the Tender Cap, there will be no Final Payment Date (as defined in the Offer to Purchase) and no Notes tendered after the Early Participation Date will be accepted for purchase.

    Subject to satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth in the Offer to Purchase, the Company anticipates that settlement of Notes accepted for purchase will occur on June 9, 2025 (the “Early Payment Date”), and that on such date the Company will accept for purchase Notes tendered as of the Early Participation Date at a Bid Price (as defined in the Offer to Purchase) that results in a Bid Premium equal to or less than $31.25 (the “Clearing Premium”), as described in the Offer to Purchase. Since the purchase of all Notes validly tendered (and not validly withdrawn) at or below the Clearing Premium would result in the purchase of Notes for aggregate cash consideration payable to Holders in excess of the Tender Cap, the Company expects to first accept for purchase all Notes validly tendered (and not validly withdrawn) on or prior to the Early Participation Date with a Bid Price that would result in a Bid Premium less than the Clearing Premium and, second, the Company expects to accept for purchase all Notes validly tendered (and not validly withdrawn) on or prior to the Early Participation Date with a Bid Price that would result in a Bid Premium equal to the Clearing Premium on a prorated basis. The Company has been advised by Ipreo LLC, the information agent and tender agent for the Tender Offer, that the applicable proration factor for Notes validly tendered and not validly withdrawn at a Bid Price that results in a Bid Premium equal to the Clearing Premium would be approximately 77.538% (the “Proration Factor”). Notes validly tendered (and not validly withdrawn) at a Bid Price that results in a Bid Premium in excess of the Clearing Premium will not be accepted for purchase pursuant to the Tender Offer and any Notes not accepted for purchase will be promptly returned to Holders following the date hereof. Notes validly tendered (and not validly withdrawn) at a Bid Price that results in a Bid Premium equal to the Clearing Premium that are not accepted for purchase pursuant to the Tender Offer based on the Proration Factor will be returned to Holders promptly.

    J.P. Morgan Securities LLC acted as sole lead dealer manager for the tender offer (the “Sole Lead Dealer Manager”), and BMO Capital Markets Corp., CIBC World Markets Corp., KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Scotia Capital (USA) Inc., Truist Securities, Inc., Fifth Third Securities, Inc., U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC served as co-dealer managers for the tender offer (the “Co-Dealer Managers” and, together with the Sole Lead Dealer Manager, the “Dealer Managers”).

    This news release is neither an offer to purchase nor a solicitation of an offer to sell any securities. The tender offer was made only by, and pursuant to the terms of, the Offer to Purchase. The tender offer was not made in any jurisdiction in which the making or acceptance thereof would not be in compliance with the securities, blue sky or other laws of such jurisdiction. In any jurisdiction where the laws require the tender offer be made by a licensed broker or dealer, the tender offer was made by the Dealer Managers on behalf of the Company. None of the Company, Ipreo LLC as Tender and Information Agent, or the Dealer Managers, nor any of their respective affiliates, has made any recommendation as to whether holders should tender or refrain from tendering all or any portion of their Notes in response to the tender offer.

    Cautionary Statement on Forward-Looking Language
    This news release may contain forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, our financing plans and the details thereof, including the proposed tender offer of the Notes and the other expected effects of such transaction. Forward-looking statements may generally be identified by the use of the words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “intend,” “project,” “plan,” “likely,” “may,” “should” or other words or phrases of similar import. Similarly, statements that describe our business strategy, outlook, objectives, plans, intentions or goals also are forward-looking statements. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements we make regarding, and the guidance we give with respect to, our anticipated operating or financial results, future financial performance and outlook, future dividend declarations, and future economic conditions.

    We believe that our expectations are based on reasonable assumptions. Forward-looking statements, however, are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict and, in many cases, beyond our control. Accordingly, our actual results could differ materially from the projections, anticipated results or other expectations expressed in this release, and no assurances can be given that our expectations will prove to have been correct. Factors that could cause the outcomes to differ materially include, but are not limited to, the following: macroeconomic conditions, including market conditions, inflation, interest rates, labor market conditions, recessionary pressures or concerns over a prolonged economic slowdown, and the related impact on consumer spending behavior, payments, debt levels, savings rates and other behaviors; global political and public health events and conditions, including significant shifts in trade policy, such as changes to, or the imposition of, tariffs and/or trade barriers and any economic impacts, volatility, uncertainty and geopolitical instability resulting therefrom, as well as ongoing wars and military conflicts and natural disasters; future credit performance of the Company’s customers, including the level of future delinquency and write-off rates; loss of, or reduction in demand for services from, significant brand partners or customers in the highly competitive markets in which the Company competes; the concentration of the Company’s business in U.S. consumer credit; increases or volatility in the Allowance for credit losses that may result from the application of the current expected credit loss (CECL) model; inaccuracies in the models and estimates on which the Company relies, including the amount of its Allowance for credit losses and our credit risk management models; increases in fraudulent activity; failure to identify, complete or successfully integrate or disaggregate business acquisitions, divestitures and other strategic initiatives, including, with respect to divested businesses, any associated guarantees, indemnities or other liabilities; the extent to which the Company’s results are dependent upon its brand partners, including its brand partners’ financial performance and reputation, as well as the effective promotion and support of the Company’s products by brand partners; increases in the cost of doing business, including market interest rates; the Company’s level of indebtedness and inability to access financial or capital markets, including asset-backed securitization funding or deposits markets; restrictions that limit the ability of Comenity Bank and Comenity Capital Bank (the “Banks”) to pay dividends to the Company; pending and future litigation; pending and future federal, state, local and foreign legislation, regulation, supervisory guidance and regulatory and legal actions including, but not limited to, those related to financial regulatory reform and consumer financial services practices, as well as any such actions with respect to late fees, interchange fees or other charges; increases in regulatory capital requirements or other support for the Banks; impacts arising from or relating to the transition of the Company’s credit card processing services to third party service providers that it completed in 2022; failures or breaches in the Company’s operational or security systems, including as a result of cyberattacks, unanticipated impacts from technology modernization projects, failure of its information security controls or otherwise; loss of consumer information or other data due to compromised physical or cyber security, including disruptive attacks from financially motivated bad actors and third party supply chain issues; and any tax or other liability or adverse impacts arising out of or related to the spinoff of the Company’s former LoyaltyOne segment or the bankruptcy filings of Loyalty Ventures Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries and subsequent litigation or other disputes. The foregoing factors, along with other risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in forward-looking statements, are described in greater detail under the headings “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the most recently ended fiscal year, which may be updated in Item 1A of, or elsewhere in, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed for periods subsequent to such Form 10-K. Our forward-looking statements speak only as of the date made, and the Company undertakes no obligation, other than as required by applicable law, to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, subsequent events, anticipated or unanticipated circumstances or otherwise.

    About Bread Financial
    Bread Financial® (NYSE: BFH) is a tech-forward financial services company that provides simple, personalized payment, lending, and saving solutions to millions of U.S consumers. Our payment solutions, including Bread Financial general purpose credit cards and savings products, empower our customers and their passions for a better life. Additionally, we deliver growth for some of the most recognized brands in travel & entertainment, health & beauty, jewelry and specialty apparel through our private label and co-brand credit cards and pay-over-time products providing choice and value to our shared customers.

    Contacts
    Brian Vereb – Investor Relations
    Brian.Vereb@BreadFinancial.com

    Susan Haugen – Investor Relations
    Susan.Haugen@BreadFinancial.com

    Rachel Stultz – Media
    Rachel.Stultz@BreadFinancial.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Video: Third UN Ocean Conference – why does it matter? | United Nations

    Source: United Nations (Video News)

    Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, Li Junhua will chair the third UN Ocean Conference from June 9-13, 2025 in Nice, France.
    He explains to UN News why this is a major opportunity for sustainable development.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulb8wClknJs

    MIL OSI Video

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Use of US digital platforms in EU projects – E-002131/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002131/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Liesbet Sommen (PPE)

    For digitalisation projects at EU and Member State level, software from large, non-European tech firms such as Salesforce, Microsoft, Google and Amazon Web Services is still being opted for in many instances. This trend raises questions about the geopolitical context, market access for European players and embedding public values within public procurement.

    In view of growing trade tensions between the EU and the US, it is apt to assess to what extent, in terms of digital policy, the EU and its Member States are acting strategically independently. At the same time, there is a need for a framework in which public values such as transparency, reusability of technology and data sovereignty are central and are factored in to procurement procedures.

    European start-ups and tech firms that are well established also offer innovative, qualitative alternatives. Greater recognition of their role would strengthen the resilience and strategic autonomy of the European digital economy.

    • 1.Can the Commission provide an overview of recent European digitalisation projects for which US software platforms were chosen and say what the selection criteria were for those choices?
    • 2.As part of procurement procedures, is the availability of high-quality European alternatives systematically looked into? If so, how are they compared with international suppliers?
    • 3.Is the Commission considering incorporating into future procurement rules additional criteria that explicitly factor in strategic autonomy, data sovereignty, transparency and strengthening of the European digital economy?

    Submitted: 28.5.2025

    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Recognising the opportunities presented by RENURE – E-002120/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002120/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Sander Smit (PPE)

    RENURE[1][2] offers several benefits that are closely aligned with the European Union’s economic, geopolitical and environmental objectives. First, it promotes the circular use of nutrients, which is essential for sustainable agriculture. Furthermore, RENURE contributes to reducing energy dependence by exploiting the methane, or biogas, released as climate-friendly green gas.

    The recovery of phosphorus – identified as a critical raw material under the Critical Raw Materials Act[3] – reduces strategic dependence on imports from third countries. Moreover, RENURE contributes to CO₂ reduction by rendering the use of synthetic fertilisers unnecessary. Applying nitrogen separately from phosphate also avoids unnecessary phosphate loading of agricultural land.

    Finally, the underlying technologies and innovations are more widely applicable, for instance for nutrient recovery from sewage sludge. The above illustrates that RENURE perfectly matches the biotech and innovation ambitions of the European Union.

    • 1.Does the Commission recognise the potential of RENURE for application within Europe and as an export product?
    • 2.Does the Commission recognise the special added value of RENURE, both ecologically and economically, particularly in regions which specialise in livestock farming?
    • 3.How does the Commission view the past few years in which the development and application of RENURE has actually been delayed despite calls for action from Parliament?

    Submitted: 27.5.2025

    • [1] European Commission JRC Science for Policy Report, ‘Technical proposals for the safe use of processed manure above the threshold established for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones by the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)’, 2020.
    • [2] European Commission, Draft Commission Directive amending Council Directive 91/676/EEC as regards the use of certain fertilising materials from livestock manure, Ref. Ares(2024)2885619 – 19 April 2024, unpublished draft.
    • [3] Regulation (EU) 2024/1252 – Critical Raw Materials Act, OJ L 202, 19.4.2024, p. 1–72.
    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Dependence on Russia in the ITER nuclear fusion project in the context of the roadmap towards ending Russian energy imports – E-002074/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002074/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Andrea Wechsler (PPE), Borys Budka (PPE), Matej Tonin (PPE)

    The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project aims to achieve fusion power production at power-plant scale. The Russian Federation is a member of the project.

    As part of its recent roadmap to phase out Russian energy imports, the Commission announced additional steps to reduce dependence on these sources. However, it remains silent on fusion energy and thus, in particular, the Russian Federation’s membership of ITER and its involvement in its governance and funding (9.1 %), and intellectual property contributions to it. Moreover, Russia is making substantial ‘in kind’ contributions (e.g. through the delivery of components for the power supply and protection of the superconducting magnets).

    • 1.How does the Commission plan to phase-out dependence on Russian participation in ITER, particularly in relation to membership, governance involvement, funding and in kind contributions, and what role could the proposal for the European radioisotope valley initiative play in this context?
    • 2.How does the Commission plan to secure the operation of ITER in the light of the project’s dependence on Russian intellectual property rights?
    • 3.Will the Commission support the establishment of an independent EU fusion energy project and a diversification of the fusion industry landscape through increased funding to private sector companies?

    Submitted: 22.5.2025

    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Protecting children from irreversible damage derived from puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones – E-002093/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002093/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Tomislav Sokol (PPE)

    Given the Health Commissioner’s responsibility for EU pharmaceutical legislation, the policy shift on gender healthcare for minors in several EU Member States (Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Italy) since the Cass Report, the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Comprehensive Review of Medical Interventions for Children and Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria, and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health file-leak scandal that discredited these practices:

    • 1.Can the Commission provide an overview of the adverse reactions to off-label and puberty blockers that have been disapproved for use (such as Triptorelin, Leuprolide, Histrelin, Goserelin) and cross-sex hormones prescribed to children experiencing gender dysphoria in the EU?
    • 2.Under the EU pharmacovigilance system, is there any project specifically designed to document, raise awareness of and tackle those adverse reactions?
    • 3.One of the announced responsibilities of the Health Commissioner is an ‘EU-wide inquiry on the broader impacts of social media on well-being’. Will this inquiry tackle the phenomenon associated with the skyrocketing number of minors referred to gender units in healthcare facilities?

    Submitted: 26.5.2025

    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Infringement of the EU-Central America free trade agreement in Panama – E-002130/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002130/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Marina Mesure (The Left)

    For several weeks, the Government of Panama has been cracking down on, and infringing the rights of, trade unionists in Panama, in the midst of extensive protests against Law 462 reforming the social security system. After the SUNTRACS union had its bank accounts frozen and received heavy administrative fines, a number of its leaders were arrested and imprisoned. The detention of these protestors is a serious violation of international fundamental freedoms, and the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association has urged the government to reopen SUNTRACS’s accounts and protect trade unionists. Panama’s Ombudsman has also recognised that these actions constitute human rights infringements.

    The European Union is tied to Panama through the Association Agreement with Central America. The agreement’s trade provisions are conditional upon respect for fundamental rights, including freedom of association, in accordance with the chapter on trade and sustainable development.

    In view of the clear infringement of these conditions:

    • 1.Will the Commission demand the immediate release of the imprisoned trade unionists, on the basis of the agreement signed between the EU and Panama?
    • 2.Will it reassess the validity of this trade agreement given the climate of intimidation Panama’s Government has created against the trade union movement?

    Submitted: 28.5.2025

    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • Tax relief, pension security mark a decade of middle-class focus

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Over the past eleven years, India’s middle class has found itself at the centre of the government’s reform agenda. From tax relief measures to simplified compliance norms and pension schemes aimed at long-term security, successive budgets have reflected a steady policy commitment towards easing the financial burden on the salaried segment.

    Framed as more than a collection of administrative reforms, the government’s approach has been marked by continuity and responsiveness. Whether in streamlining tax returns, enabling affordable housing, or expanding access to essential services such as healthcare and urban transport, the focus has been on removing procedural barriers and making systems work better for ordinary citizens.

    Revised Income Tax Thresholds

    A major highlight in the Union Budget 2025–26 was the announcement of a higher income tax exemption limit. Individuals earning up to ₹12 lakh annually will now be exempt from paying income tax, barring certain categories such as capital gains. With the standard deduction raised to ₹75,000, taxpayers with incomes up to ₹12.75 lakh effectively fall outside the tax net.

    The move is expected to benefit crores of salaried taxpayers and comes despite a projected revenue loss of close to ₹1 lakh crore. Officials indicated that the measure was guided by a recognition of middle-class pressures and a long-standing demand for greater tax relief.

    Simplified Compliance and Rising Voluntary Filings

    Over the years, income tax compliance has been progressively simplified. From the introduction of standard deductions to the rollout of a new tax regime in 2020, efforts have focused on reducing documentation and making systems more user-friendly.

    Pre-filled income tax return forms—now populated with data such as salary income, interest, and dividends—have played a key role in reducing procedural complexity. As a result, the number of individual return filers has more than doubled in the past decade, rising from 3.91 crore in FY 2013–14 to 9.19 crore in FY 2024–25.

    Faceless Assessment and Digital Governance

    Introduced in 2019, the faceless e-assessment framework has fundamentally altered the way scrutiny proceedings are conducted. By eliminating physical interface between taxpayers and assessment officers, the system is intended to enhance transparency and reduce discretion.

    Under the framework, cases selected for scrutiny are allocated randomly through a centralised system operated by the National e-Assessment Centre in New Delhi. Taxpayers receive notices under Section 143(2) and are required to respond digitally within 15 days. The move from territorial to dynamic jurisdiction has been widely viewed as a structural reform in tax administration.

    Policy Continuity and Recognition

    Observers note that the measures implemented over the last decade reflect a consistent policy stance rather than isolated interventions. The middle class—often referred to as the backbone of consumption-driven growth—has been acknowledged not just as a tax base, but as a constituency requiring long-term support and recognition.

  • Home-cooked veg, non-veg thalis get cheaper in May as food inflation cools: Crisil

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The cost of home-cooked vegetarian and non-vegetarian thalis declined by 6 per cent each (year-on-year) in May due to a sharp drop in prices of key vegetables led by a high-base effect, a Crisil report showed on Thursday.

    On a monthly basis, the cost of a vegetarian thali remained stable, while a non-vegetarian thali reduced by 2 per cent last month.

    Tomato prices fell 29 per cent to Rs 23 per kg from Rs 33 per kg in May as concerns over yield lifted prices last year. Prices of onion and potato declined 15 per cent and 16 per cent, respectively, on-year, according to the ‘Roti Rice Rate’ (RRR) report.

    Potato prices had shot up last year due to crop damage following blight infestations and unseasonal rainfall in West Bengal, while onion prices had increased due to lower rabi acreage and yield, as water availability in key growing states – Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka – was low.

    The average cost of preparing a thali at home is calculated based on input prices prevailing in north, south, east, and west India. The monthly change reflects the impact on the common man’s expenditure.

    The data also reveals the ingredients (cereals, pulses, broilers, vegetables, spices, edible oil and cooking gas) driving the change in the cost of the thali.

    “Thali costs diverged marginally on-month in May 2025, with vegetarian thali holding steady and non-vegetarian thali becoming 2 per cent cheaper. While tomato and potato turned dearer, prices of onion declined, keeping the vegetarian thali cost stable sequentially,” said Pushan Sharma, Director-Research, Crisil Intelligence.

    The cost of non-vegetarian thali, however, eased due to a decline in broiler prices. An estimated 4 per cent on-month decline in broiler prices contributed towards the decline in the non-vegetarian thali cost.

    “Going ahead, we anticipate an uptick in vegetable prices owing to seasonal variations and a slight easing in prices of wheat and pulses amid strong domestic output,” said Sharma.

    (IANS)

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Dangerous supplements promoted to young people via social media – E-002136/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002136/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Liesbet Sommen (PPE)

    Keeping or becoming fit is becoming very popular among young men, one factor in this being social media. Though that, in itself, is a healthy pastime, the increased consumption of all sorts of food supplements, many of which are not certified to European standards, poses health risks.

    Young people are confronted with unrealistic ideals of beauty on social media, which are promoted in many instances by ‘fitfluencers’ who themselves use supplements that may or may not be deliberately contaminated with anabolic steroids. On 9 April the Flemish public broadcaster VRT transmitted a report on this[1] . During the programme, several scientists maintained that a significant number of supplements marketed to young people through channels such as Instagram, TikTok and YouTube are contaminated with anabolic steroids and/or carcinogenic substances without young people being aware of that fact.

    • 1.Is the Commission aware of this worrying development? Does it intend to act as coordinator in dealings with Member States in order to address this cross-border health threat?
    • 2.We realise that there are notification and information systems which issue warnings about dangerous products within the EU. Is the Commission nonetheless prepared to take further steps, in cooperation with Member States, to move towards a more effective and coordinated policy?

    Submitted: 28.5.2025

    • [1] https://www.vrt.be/vrtmax/a-z/pano/2025-vj-/pano-s2025-vj-a4/
    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Fostering a European identity – E-001924/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-001924/2025/rev.1
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Alexander Jungbluth (ESN)

    One of the objectives the Commission has set itself is to foster a European identity.

    • 1.Has the process to create, strengthen or develop a European identity received any financial support from the Commission or its subordinated bodies, offices and agencies or non-governmental organisations (NGOs) since 2009? If so, how much funding was provided, and from which organisations?
    • 2.If applicable, depending on the answer to question 1, what criteria do the Commission or its subordinated bodies, offices and agencies use to measure the potential success of programmes that receive financial support to create, strengthen or develop a European identity?
    • 3.Are the Commission, its subordinated bodies, offices and agencies or Commission-funded NGOs involved in curricula for education institutions in EU Member States to foster a European identity?

    Submitted: 14.5.2025

    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Missions – Ad hoc mission to Geneva, 19-20 May 2025 – 19-05-2025 – Subcommittee on Human Rights

    Source: European Parliament

    On 19-20 May, DROI Subcommittee travelled to Geneva for meetings with the United Nations Human Rights Council, other UN bodies active in the field of human rights, relevant Geneva-based international organisations, and civil society organisations.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Waste products as a source of feed in insect farming – E-002112/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002112/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Christine Schneider (PPE), Lena Düpont (PPE)

    The cost of rearing black soldier fly larvae is currently largely determined by the cost of feed grain. As it stands, waste products cannot be used in feed for insect farming – only high-quality feed grain is permitted. This significantly weakens the financial competitiveness of insect protein. Historically, the EU’s strict requirements on feed law can be explained by the BSE crisis. Recently, rules have been relaxed in relation to the use of offal-derived animal protein in feed. However, the insect farming sector has not yet benefited from such a relaxation of rules, even if it only supplies the pet food value chain.

    • 1.To what extent is a relaxation of restrictions in the area of insect farming planned, and under what conditions are these conceivable?
    • 2.Is it currently possible to use waste products in feed under certain conditions – such as on the pet food market or as part of pilot and demonstration projects, etc. – and which waste products would be conceivable in this sense?

    Submitted: 27.5.2025

    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – German security service classifying AfD as ‘right-wing extremist’ in violation of EU fundamental rights – E-002110/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002110/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Mary Khan (ESN), Petra Steger (PfE)

    On 2 May 2025, the German security service classified the party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) as ‘right-wing extremist’. This measure against what is – according to polls – Germany’s leading party was carried out without trial or valid justification and constitutes targeted state stigmatisation by the Federal Security Service. It violates fundamental principles of EU law: Article 10(1) TEU guarantees that all parties can participate in democratic decision-making and Article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union guarantees freedom of association. By effectively discriminating against an authorised party, such an administrative measure seriously violates these rights and reveals the ruling class’s willingness to resort to escalation as soon as it sees its power under threat. While other Member States are swiftly faced with infringement procedures for alleged breaches of the rule of law, the Commission remains noticeably inactive vis-à-vis Germany. These double standards undermine the Commission’s credibility as guardian of the Treaties and cast doubt on its political independence. With more and more censorship measures being taken on the basis of ‘disinformation’ claims, it seems that Brussels itself is prepared to systematically eliminate unwelcome opinions that deviate from the political mainstream.

    • 1.Does the Commission consider this state surveillance of a legal party to be a violation of Article 10 TEU and Article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
    • 2.Why has there yet to be an infringement procedure launched against Germany under Article 258 TFEU to ensure equal treatment of all parties under the rule of law and the integrity of democratic competition?

    Submitted: 27.5.2025

    Last updated: 5 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Bologna: A pioneer in inclusive urban planning

    Source: European Investment Bank

    “We were eager to start using the manual and the atlas,” Bonzagni says.

    Working with Cleto Carlini, the director of mobility and public works, the city identified two pilot projects: a school in the Borgo Panigale-Reno neighbourhood and the “Via della Conoscenza,” a major cycle pedestrian path that connects research facilities, public spaces and historical sites.

    There is also an economic advantage to gender-inclusive urban planning. When cities serve a diverse population, this helps economic growth because more women participate in the workforce through improved access to public services, including transportation. “This growth will benefit everyone, and women in particular, because they will be able to lead independent lives,” says Clancy, the deputy mayor.

    Bologna’s work to redefine urban planning with a gender approach can be a blueprint for other cities.

    “By weaving this inclusive touch into the urban fabric, we create better cities and societies,” Clancy says.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: REPORT on financing for development – ahead of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville – A10-0101/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

    on financing for development – ahead of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville

    (2025/2004(INI))

    The European Parliament,

     having regard to UN General Assembly Resolution 70/1 of 25 September 2015 entitled ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, adopted at the UN Sustainable Development Summit in New York and establishing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),

     having regard to the Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development held in Addis Ababa from 13 to 16 July 2015,

     having regard to the Paris Agreement of 12 December 2015, adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,

     having regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) of 13 September 2007,

     having regard to the document of the United National Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) of January 2012 entitled ‘Principles on Promoting Responsible Sovereign Lending and Borrowing’,

     having regard to the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC),

     having regard to the UN General Assembly Resolution 68/304 of 9 September 2014 entitled ‘Towards the Establishment of a Multilateral Legal Framework for Sovereign Debt Restructuring Processes’,

     having regard to the UN General Assembly Resolution of 10 September 2015 on the ‘Basic Principles on Sovereign Debt Restructuring Processes’,

     having regard to the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) of 10 November 2022 entitled ‘Global Outlook on Financing for Sustainable Development 2023: No Sustainability Without Equity’,

     having regard to the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of 5 September 2024 entitled ‘Multilateral Development Finance 2024’,

     having regard to the UN Secretary-General’s SDG stimulus to deliver Agenda 2030 of February 2023,

     having regard to UN General Assembly Resolution 79/1 of 22 September 2024 entitled ‘The Pact for the Future’, adopted at the Summit of the Future in New York,

     having regard to the partnership agreement between the EU and its Member States, of the one part, and the Members of the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States, of the other part[1] (the Samoa Agreement),

     having regard to the joint statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission of 30 June 2017 entitled ‘The new European consensus on development: Our world, our dignity, our future’[2],

     having regard to the Council conclusions of 10 June 2021 on enhancing the European financial architecture for development,

     having regard to its resolution of 17 April 2018 on enhancing developing countries’* debt sustainability[3],

     having regard to its resolution of 24 November 2022 on the future European Financial Architecture for Development[4],

     having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2023 on Policy Coherence for Development[5],

     having regard to its resolution of 15 June 2023 on the implementation and delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals[6],

     having regard to the EU Gender Action Plan (GAP III),

     having regard to the Youth Action Plan (YAP) in European Union external action for 2022-2027,

     having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/947 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 June 2021 establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe, amending and repealing Decision No 466/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EU) 2017/1601 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 480/2009[7],

     having regard to the Climate Bank Roadmap of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 14 December 2020,

     having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 1 December 2021 entitled ‘The Global Gateway’ (JOIN(2021)0030),

     having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

     having regard to the report of the Committee on Development (A10-0101/2025),

    A. whereas Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), dictates the reduction, and in the long-term eradication, of poverty as the primary objective of the EU’s development cooperation; whereas Article 21(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) reaffirms its commitment to supporting human rights, preserving peace and preventing conflict, assisting populations, countries and regions confronting natural or man-made disasters, and to the sustainable management of global natural resources;

    B. whereas Article 18(4) TEU calls on the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to ensure the consistency of the Union’s external action;

    C. whereas, at this critical juncture, with just five years remaining before we reach the 2030 target date for the SDGs, the increasing number of crises worldwide, the rise in extreme poverty and hunger, and the increasingly frequent and severe consequences of climate change have meant that, according to the 2024 UN SDG Report, only 17 % of the Sustainable Development Goals are currently on track to be achieved by 2030, despite progress in certain areas; whereas developing countries’[*] domestic revenue mobilisation remained low, due, among other factors, to illicit financial flows and also often corruption, causing crucial resources to be diverted from healthcare, education, and infrastructure development;

    D. whereas more than 700 million people worldwide are living in extreme poverty, a figure that keeps increasing; whereas poverty disproportionately affects women and girls globally, and the gender-poverty gap persists to this day; whereas the wealth gap and inequality within and between countries is widening, hindering sustainable development;

    E. whereas mobilising even a small fraction of global wealth for sustainable development remains difficult, with UN Trade and Development estimating that the annual SDG financing gap in developing countries* has increased to USD 4–4.3 trillion, representing a more than 50 % increase over pre-pandemic estimates and requiring an unprecedented mobilisation of financial resources, both public and private, at the global level, especially to tackle the climate crisis, biodiversity loss and rising inequalities;

    F. whereas food insecurity has significantly risen as a result of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, as well as due to the impact of other armed conflicts and is therefore a barrier of achieving the SDGs; whereas EU cooperation needs to tackle the challenge of food security effectively with partner countries in a sustainable manner;

    G. whereas leading global donors in development cooperation are abandoning their commitments to finance sustainable development;

    H. whereas it is estimated that, if Member States had met the commitment to devote 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) to official development assistance (ODA) since 1970, more than EUR 1.2 trillion could have been allocated for development cooperation, a figure that is likely even to be much higher when taking into account the remainder of donor countries worldwide;

    I. whereas developing countries* face significantly higher borrowing costs, paying on average twice as much interest on their total sovereign debt stock compared to developed (higher income) countries, due to imbalanced global financial structures, but also due to the rating of country-specific risk factors, governance challenges or macroeconomic instability, which further exacerbates the finance divide;

    J. whereas, according to the latest data, almost two-thirds of low-income countries in the world are currently either in debt distress or at high risk thereof, with over 100 countries struggling due to the combination of debt and interest; whereas low-income countries (LICs) spent nearly 20 % of government revenues on servicing external debt in 2023, up fourfold since 2013; whereas debt spending in over three-quarters of low income countries is several times the spending on public goods such as education, health, social protection, or climate change, thus creating one of the most important obstacles for global south countries to advance the SDGs;

    K. whereas if indebted countries are also hit by a catastrophic external shock, such as a natural disaster, they often resort to further borrowing to pay for the reconstruction and recovery costs;

    L. whereas developing countries* in debt distress are projected to face annual debt servicing costs of USD 40 billion between 2023 and 2025, severely constraining their fiscal space for essential public investments;

    M. whereas achieving sustainable development requires more than just curbing debt solutions and securing external finance, it also involves strengthening the economic self-sufficiency of developing countries*, including through enhanced domestic resource mobilisation, qualitative investment-friendly policies, favouring the promotion of local entrepreneurship and local private sector growth;

    N. whereas a fifth of the world’s population lives in countries with high levels of inequality and, according to data from 2023, the richest 1 % of the world owns 47.5 % of all global wealth, and the effective tax rates on the richest 1 % are often lower than the tax rates for the rest of the population;

    O. whereas Climate Resilient Debt Clauses (CRDC) are clauses that can be added to loan or bond contracts and that are triggered by certain specified external catastrophic events, notably climate-related events, which allow the borrower to temporarily suspend debt payments;

    P. whereas the structure of creditors is changing and becoming more complex, with private creditors and new bilateral creditors outside the Paris Club playing a much larger role; whereas China, in particular, issues loans under opaque conditions, which is why stronger international regulation and disclosure of this debt is necessary;

    Q. whereas the upcoming Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in 2025 presents a critical moment for the necessary reform of the global financial architecture and for addressing the growing financing challenges;

    R. whereas the current international financial architecture is based on the Bretton Woods Agreements of 1944, which represent an architecture that today is incapable of meeting the needs of the 21st century multipolar world, specifically the needs of so-called Global South countries characterised by deeply integrated economies and financial markets, but also marked by geopolitical tensions, growing systemic risks and the effects of climate change, and persists in upholding the existing power imbalance that favours countries in the so-called Global North;

    S. whereas in order to address unsustainable and illegitimate debts, all governments must participate on an equal footing in the decision-making on debt crisis prevention and resolution, as well as different aspects of debt management, beyond creditor-dominated forums;

    T. whereas an improved global financial safety net is necessary to deal with systemic risks and global financial, economic and health crises and shocks;

    U. whereas indebted countries tend to avoid debt restructuring at all costs, i.e. to secure access to the financial market in the future; whereas in order to make external debt payments possible, governments tend to implement harsh austerity programmes, on many occasions following the IMF assessment;

    V. whereas conditionalities imposed by the IMF and some multilateral development banks (MDBs) are focused on fiscal consolidation and market solutions, thus limiting public investment to advance the SDGs; whereas the ultimate consequence of austerity programmes is a deep breach of people’s human rights in the Global South; whereas the G20 Common Framework has done little to solve those limitations, since priority is given to debt rescheduling and reprofiling;

    W. whereas tax resources as a share of GDP remain low in most developing countries*, which are confronted with social, political and administrative difficulties in establishing a sound public finance system, thereby making them particularly vulnerable to tax evasion and avoidance activities of individual taxpayers and corporations;

    X. whereas globalisation creates both opportunities and challenges, as in the case of the increased prevalence and size of multinational enterprises and changes in business models that may enable base erosion and tax avoidance and profit shifting on a significant scale, severely undermining domestic revenue collection, particularly in developing countries*; whereas as a result, taxes on corporate profits have been declining around the world; whereas international tax cooperation needs more solidarity to address national and global challenges;

    Y. whereas climate change has a negative impact on global sustainable development, exacerbating biodiversity loss, breakdown of ecosystems, natural disasters and extreme weather events, and disproportionately affecting historically marginalised groups, in particular women;

    Z. whereas development aid is increasingly being militarised, with funds originally intended for poverty eradication and social progress being diverted towards migration control, security cooperation, and geopolitical competition;

    Aa. whereas illicit financial flows out of developing countries*, challenges such as trade mispricing, loopholes in international tax rules and corruption continue to pose a serious obstacle, often undermining fair and inclusive development efforts, and impacting developing countries’* national budgets and social policy, thus severely reducing funds available for sustainable development; whereas responsible tax behaviour by multinational enterprises is an essential element of the principles of corporate social responsibility;

    Ab. whereas the potential of taxing extractive industries to boost fiscal revenues is largely untapped in developing countries*, primarily due to inadequate global tax rules and the challenges of enforcing them, as transnational companies frequently employ tax avoidance strategies; whereas this challenge is all the more acute for low-income countries that are heavily dependent on natural resources for their economic development;

    Ac. whereas current investment choices continue to diverge from the sustainable development goals, with vast capital flows supporting carbon-intensive industries, while funding for decarbonisation and the energy transition remains insufficient;

    Ad. whereas Russia is expanding its foothold in developing countries* in Africa, most notably in the Sahel region, spreading anti-European propaganda and offering alternatives to European ODA through bilateral deals;

    Ae. whereas the digitalisation of the economy has exacerbated existing problems relating to corporate tax avoidance and evasion, and the importance of ensuring fair and effective taxation of digital services;

    Af. whereas the EIB, through its development arm EIB Global, has committed to increasing the impact of international partnerships and development finance outside the European Union, presenting an opportunity for an enhanced EU contribution to global sustainable development;

    Ag. whereas the EIB has expanded its regional presence, including by opening new regional representation offices, such as the one in Jakarta, Indonesia, to strengthen engagement in south-east Asia and the Pacific;

    Ah. whereas the EIB, through EIB Global, is committed to sustainable development, climate action and innovative investments in low- and middle-income countries;

    Ai. whereas on 20 January 2025, the United States issued an Executive Order, enacting a 90-day suspension and reassessment of all foreign assistance programmes, including those administered by  United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and reaffirmed its withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Paris Agreement, actions that have serious implications for humanitarian, health and climate initiatives in the Global South; whereas other countries, including some EU countries, also cut their global aid budgets, placing immense pressure on the international development and humanitarian sector;

    Aj. whereas the US withdrawal from foreign assistance programmes puts the EU in a decisive position in global development cooperation and the EU should assess how to strategically address critical shortfalls, particularly in sectors where stability, economic development, and humanitarian support are at risk, while ensuring a coordinated approach with international partners;

    Ak. whereas using regional multilateral development banks (MDBs) as a source of funding could lead to more balanced and equitable collaborations in support of efforts to reform the international financial architecture;

    Al. whereas official development assistance (ODA) has been cut back in many countries, including in the EU; whereas in 2023 only five countries worldwide met or exceeded the UN target of spending 0.7 % of their GNI on official development assistance (ODA); whereas the EU collectively undertook to provide 0.7 % of GNI as ODA, and 0.2 % as ODA to least developed countries (LDCs) by 2030, reaffirmed in the Council conclusions of June 2024, in the European Consensus on Development and in the Council conclusions of 26 May 2015; whereas the successful mobilisation of further capital, both private and public, in addition to ODA and other existing forms of development finance, is critical;

    Am. whereas the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) agreed upon during the COP29 in Baku on 24 November 2024 includes commitments to mobilise at least USD 300 billion per year for climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries*; whereas the launch of the Baku-Belém Roadmap requires reaching at least an additional USD 1.3 trillion per year for development cooperation by 2035;

    An. whereas the fragmentation of government approaches to sustainable development financing remains a challenge, with the OECD noting that better policy coherence is needed to align tax, budgetary and development policies;

    Principles and objectives

    1. Stresses the importance for the international community to utilise the opportunities presented by the 4th Financing for Development Conference (FfD4) in Seville to promote structural reform of the international financial architecture to democratise international development cooperation and create equal power sharing, and to call for equitable and inclusive development cooperation policies that support gender equality;

    2. Calls on the EU as a key multilateral actor and its Member States to increase their efforts in development cooperation, increasing their presence, to improve the EU’s global credibility as a reliable partner and strengthen partnerships based on shared values;

    3. Reiterates that EU development policy must be driven by the principles and objectives set out in the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and must ensure the application of a human rights based and human-centred approach, in line with Article 208 TFEU, the European Consensus on Development, the GAP III, the YAP, and International Human Rights Law;

    4. Acknowledges that the existing financial architecture presents ongoing challenges to preventing and addressing debt crises, highlighting the need to strengthen the tools available to promote responsible financing and long-term debt sustainability; considers that, in view of the insufficient progress towards the SDGs, the SDG financing gap, and the multitude of recent crises, the FfD4 is an urgently needed opportunity to set up a fair and efficient multilateral debt work-out mechanism, to help strengthen multilateralism, support systemic changes that address long-standing inequalities, define concrete commitments, reinforce the EU’s credibility as a development partner, as well as make substantial progress on ensuring stable financing for sustainable development worldwide; stresses that the mobilisation and effective use of domestic resources, underpinned by the principle of national ownership, are also essential for sustainable development;

    5. Calls on the EU to take effective measures against the shrinking of civic space, and ensure civil society participation in the reform of the current structures for development finance;

    6. Reiterates that at least 93 % of EU development policy expenditure must fulfil the criteria for ODA, and that at least 85 % of new actions should have gender equality as a principal or significant objective, and that at least 5 % should have gender equality as the principal objective;

    7. Emphasises the need for a comprehensive, integrated and people-centred approach to development finance in line with the Bridgetown Initiative, which calls for liquidity and debt sustainability issues to be addressed, for democratisation of financial institutions and debt relief to be implemented, for development and climate finance to be scaled up and for private capital to be increased to achieve the SDGs; stresses the importance of strengthening cooperation with like-minded partners;

    8. Calls for the EU to lead by example in reforming the international financial architecture to better meet the needs of the 21st century, characterised by deeply integrated economies, financial markets, and growing systemic risks;

    9. Recalls the commitment taken at COP 29 in form of the Baku-Belem roadmap to mobilise USD 1.3 trillion per year for development cooperation by 2035; urges the EU and its Member States to work together with their partners towards achieving this goal on the global level, encouraging cumulative polluters to take their part in climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries*, as well as for loss and damages, through public concessional and non-debt creating instruments, in line with the ‘Baku to Belem Roadmap’ agreed at COP 29; emphasises in this context the need for private investment to provide the necessary funds;

    10. Recalls that progressive taxation is pivotal to making progress on the ecological transition as well as on social and economic justice; stresses the need to look to new sources of financing, notably from sectors contributing the least to taxation while benefiting the most from globalisation, including those with the largest carbon and greenhouse gas emissions; in particular, calls for the exploration of innovative financing mechanisms, including market-based instruments and for contributions from sectors benefiting from globalisation, and establishment of specific taxes, to help finance global public goods, reduce inequalities within and between countries, contribute to climate objectives and support regional sustainable development; notes that growth, competitiveness and stability of developed economies is also a necessary precondition for increasing ODA financing;

    11. Stresses the importance of policy coherence for development (PCD), including gender and climate goals, as a fundamental part of the EU’s contribution to achieving the SDGs; calls for mainstreaming development goals into all EU policies that affect developing countries*, taking into account their legitimate concerns as regards the impact from European legislation; welcomes the Global Gateway strategy and highlights the importance of any EU development initiative to comply with a rights-based approach and to be linked to human development at all times; insist that EU development initiatives should never contribute in any way to enhancing the debt crisis or increasing inequalities; stresses furthermore that PCD implementation is essential to address the structural causes of the Global South’s unsustainable indebtedness;

    12. Stresses the importance of supporting enabling environments for civil society engagement through development programmes and ensuring their participation in decision-making processes on development aid, including ensuring an inclusive process in the FfD4, supporting civil society participation and access to negotiations and information, and support their role in monitoring and following up on decisions made;

    13. Underlines that underinvestment in critical social sectors threatens progress towards meeting the SDGs and exacerbates inequalities, including gender inequality; stresses the need to close financing gaps in the provision of essential public services, including health, education, energy, water and sanitation, and building social protection systems;

    14. Recognises the primary objective of EU development policy to be the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty, while also contributing to fostering sustainable economic, social and environmental development in developing countries*;

    15. Emphasises that inadequate investment in agrifood systems continues to aggravate food insecurity; stresses that a strategic approach that ensures better alignment and synergy among the different sources of financing, particularly in developing countries*, is needed to address food insecurity and malnutrition;

    16. Underlines the importance of fostering stronger, more inclusive multi-stakeholder partnerships that fully consider the views and standpoints of our development partner countries – at national, regional and local levels – as well as those of other stakeholders such as international institutions, development banks, non-governmental and civil society organisations, academia and think tanks; believes these development partnerships should be based on equality and tailored to reflect the capacities and needs of partner countries, as outlined in the European Consensus on Development; considers that, while financial support for partner countries is often essential, it cannot fully replace domestic efforts, but should complement them with the aim of catalysing economic growth, strengthening social protection systems and supporting investments in comprehensive human development, particularly education and job creation, which are key tools in eradicating poverty; underlines, in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, that partnerships should be grounded in mutual interests and shared values, prioritising sustainable development and the needs of people; stresses the importance of respecting human rights and ensuring a people-centred approach;

    17. Stresses the importance of transparency, accountability and proper oversight, emphasising that all EU funding for development cooperation must be carefully managed and monitored to prevent misuse, diversion, or inefficiency, while ensuring that resources are directed towards projects and initiatives that achieve the greatest positive impact in terms of the SDGS;

    Debt

    18. In view of the increasing number of low-income countries in debt distress or at high risk thereof; calls for the opening of an intergovernmental process to set up a UN Framework Convention on Sovereign Debt to address responsible financing with the purpose of preventing and resolving unsustainable debts; urges the EU and its Member States to support this process, to ensure fair burden-sharing among all creditors, including multilateral development banks, where necessary, without jeopardising MDBs’ financial health, to deal in particular with problems such as enormous delays in implementing restructurings and the lack of a common understanding and enforceable rules as regards the comparability of treatment of official and private creditors;

    19. Considers that the reform of the current debt structure should provide countries in the Global South with fair and lasting solutions to a crisis that is already having devastating effects on populations, particularly on women and the most vulnerable communities;

    20. Believes that, in many cases, only general debt relief and cancellation of debt, free of economic policy conditions and accepted by all creditors, can put a country back on a sustainable path of financing, instead of deferring debt repayments; stresses the need to develop domestic legislation to enforce private creditor’s participation in debt restructuring deals;

    21. Finds, however, that any such debt relief must be accompanied by internationally agreed principles on responsible borrowing and lending, including implementation and monitoring mechanisms, alongside enhanced transparency and accountability standards, capacity building and efforts to combat corruption; highlights that, in order to be effective, responsible lending and borrowing principles need to go beyond voluntary approaches; highlights in this context the importance of committing to international human rights, civic and civil society engagement;

    22. Recognises that women are often overrepresented in the public sector, and thereby disproportionally vulnerable to and impacted by budget cuts; emphasises therefore the importance of including a gender perspective in debt collection;

    23. Emphasises the need for enhanced international cooperation to address the changing creditor structure, where private creditors now hold more than a quarter of the external debt stock of developing countries*, and new bilateral creditors outside the Paris Club are involved in debt restructuring efforts, particularly in jurisdictions governing significant portions of sovereign debt, such as New York and the United Kingdom;

    24. Stresses the importance of increasing public and grants-based finance for climate mitigation and adaptation, and that climate finance in the form of loans risks further aggravating the debt distress of low- and middle-income countries; notes that only 50 % of the EU’s total climate finance continues to be provided in the form of grants; urges the EU and all Member States to increase grant-based finance, particularly for adaptation, and especially for least developed countries and small island developing states*;

    25. Calls for closer and stronger cooperation and coordination between the European Parliament, the European Commission, the European External Action Service and EU delegations, particularly in developing countries* in fragile contexts, in order to facilitate discussions and cooperation with relevant actors on the ground in order to identify the most effective projects;

    26. Urges the UN member states to develop a harmonised framework to strengthen domestic sovereign debt restructuring laws across its member countries, with the aim of facilitating more efficient and equitable debt treatment;

    27. Emphasises the need for greater policy coherence in addressing sovereign debt issues, aligning tax, budgetary, and development policies to effectively respond to cross-cutting challenges such as climate change and inequality;

    Reform of the international financial architecture

    28. Calls for an increase in the financing power of MDBs, and the expansion of their mandates to tackle global challenges;

    29. Calls for grants and highly concessional financing of the ecological transition, in particular for mobilising more resources for adaptation and the operationalisation of the Loss and Damage Fund; in addition, believes that all public lenders – governments, MDBs and other official lenders, including the IMF – should include, in their contracts, state-contingent clauses that are tied to climate and other economic exogenous shocks;

    30. Considers it necessary to guarantee new, additional, predictable funding that is readily accessible to women, indigenous peoples and the most vulnerable communities;

    31. Calls for the implementation of a rules-based, automatic quota reallocation system in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to better reflect the changing global economic landscape and ensure fairer representation of emerging economies, as well as low income and least developed countries; in the meantime, calls for IMF special drawing rights to be rechannelled to developing countries* and multilateral development banks (MDBs), in line with the Bridgetown initiative, the UN Secretary-General’s SDG Stimulus and the initiatives of the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and for such rights to continue to be regularly allocated; in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities;

    32. Underlines that EU financing must uphold the EU’s role as the world’s leading provider of development aid and climate finance in line with the Union’s global obligations and commitments; calls for sustainable financing models that prioritise resilience, reduce fiscal dependence and support structural transformation to prevent recurrent financial distress in developing economies*;

    33. Welcomes the commitment to gender balance on executive boards of all international organisations in the Zero Draft on the FfD4 Outcome; supports the establishment of a joint committee for governance reforms in the Bretton Woods Institutions to enhance transparency, inclusivity, such as through a fairer representation in decision-making bodies and fair access to finance and diversity in leadership and staff;

    34. Underlines that civil society organisations and smaller non-governmental organisations as well as churches and faith-based organisations are key development partners, since they work closely together with populations on the ground and are therefore better acquainted with their needs, and retain a presence after many other aid providers have withdrawn; calls for the adoption of guidelines on partnerships with churches and faith-based organisations in the area of development cooperation;

    35. Recalls that the regulation of the financial system is essential to advancing towards the prevention and fair resolution of debt crises;

    36. Calls for stronger regulation of global commodity futures markets, which is especially important for food and fuel products, and digital financial markets; stresses equally the need to encourage appropriate finance for social and environmental objectives, while discouraging the financing of high-carbon activities;

    Private business and finance

    37. Emphasises again the crucial role of the mobilisation of private finance to close the financing gap in achieving the SDGs and calls for more action to facilitate private sector involvement in development cooperation and to encourage companies to invest in less developed countries; recalls, however, that private sector investment and blended finance instruments have not always proven to be effective or sufficient in least developed and fragile states, especially in critical public services such as health, education and social protection, and they cannot fully replace public investment, thus requiring special attention from international donors, governments and MDBs; recognises, however, the potential role of enhanced public-private partnerships (PPPs), particularly in the field of technical and vocational training, upskilling and reskilling;

    38. Recalls the need to promote investments in education and vocational training in order to prioritise sustainable job creation and contribute to achieving the SDGs; further notes that trade, investment and job creation are a vital part of EU engagement for development and are contributing to sustainable development;

    39. Underlines the lack of transparency regarding the functioning of the Global Gateway in EU partner countries and absence of clear mechanisms for assessing its impact, particularly in fragile contexts where the Global Gateway may not apply; emphasises that there must be a continuous evaluation of the Global Gateway to assess its effectiveness and strategic direction;

    40. Insists that a conducive business enabling environment is essential for private investment, including through the rule of law, transparency, good governance, anti-corruption measures, investor and consumer protection, and fair competition; calls on the Commission to monitor and further improve mechanisms that will provide a security guarantee for European investors, on the other hand, stresses the need to rebalance investors’ rights with obligations towards the host state i.e. by supporting the local economy through technology transfer and by utilising local labour and inputs, so as to ensure that FDI translates into wider socio-economic benefits for society; calls for further improved access to affordable financing for the informal sector, dominated by micro- and small businesses, often led by women; calls for scaled-up EIB guarantee programmes to financially support small and medium-sized enterprises;

    41. Recalls that the security landscape is a decisive factor for investments and for sustainable development; highlights in this context the role and activities of religious institutions, women and all civil-society actors in conflict resolution and management, contributing to peace and security; more generally, emphasises the interconnectedness of development and security and stresses the necessity of further advancing a clearly defined nexus between development, peace and security;

    42. Emphasises that blended public and private finance must be aligned with the SDGs, focusing on development and requiring frameworks and legislation that focus on sustainable business and finance, sustainability disclosure and transparency and the set-up of a global SDG finance taxonomy;

    43. Calls on the EU to constructively engage towards the adoption of the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises and to allow victims to seek redress;

    44. Calls for the establishment of a dedicated SDG investment facilitation mechanism supported by the international community to identify and develop investment-ready opportunities aligned with the SDGs in least developed countries, leveraging the UNDP SDG Investor Platform’s success in identifying over 600 investment opportunity areas in emerging markets; recalls that SMEs play an important role in achieving the SDGs and therefore need to be encouraged and incentivised by EU policies to actively participate in initiatives contributing to sustainable development in developing countries*; also urges the EU and its Member States to prioritise allocation of grants and concessional financing based on vulnerabilities, namely in LDCs, fragile or conflict-affected countries, and to engage in coordination with relevant stakeholders including civil society actors;

    45. Urges the expansion of innovative financing mechanisms to mobilise private capital for SDG-aligned projects in LDCs and fragile states, emphasising the need to double current finance flows to nature-based solutions from USD 154 billion to at least USD 384 billion per year by 2025 to effectively address biodiversity loss, land degradation ecosystem destruction and climate change;

    46. Stresses the importance of capacity building and technical assistance for LDCs to develop long-term viable and SDG-aligned projects, advance human development and improve their investment climates, thereby attracting more private sector investment in critical sectors such as renewable energy, healthcare, and sustainable agriculture;

    47. Advocates the creation of a global risk mitigation facility consolidated within current UN-frameworks to address the higher perceived risks and borrowing costs faced by low- and middle-income countries; calls for the regulation of the credit rating system, which currently benefits countries in the Global North disproportionately over those in the Global South, which pay on average twice as much interest on their sovereign debt compared to developed countries, to address these higher perceived risks and borrowing costs;

    48. Emphasises the need for clearly defined access to development finance for local and regional governments in partner countries to ensure more balanced and transparent allocation of resources; stresses that overly centralised funding structures risk reinforcing inefficiencies and the politically motivated distribution of funds; underlines that empowering local governments – many of which play a crucial role in delivering public services and fostering inclusive economic development – would enhance community-based investments, accountability and governance reforms;

    49. Emphasises the need to promote PPPs and private investments, which drive economic growth and sustainable regional development;

    50. Highlights that PPPs are needed to cover the financial gap for development objectives in partner countries, further notes that private sector investments also need to serve the development of local communities and encourage, in this context, investments in education and vocational training;

    51. Highlights the special challenges faced by persons with disabilities and their families in terms of accessing development aid; calls for the special needs of persons with disabilities to be taken into account in development financing;

    Tax cooperation

    52. Welcomes the two-pillar solution for addressing the tax challenges arising from the digitalisation and globalisation of the economy, as agreed by the members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, as a step forward; takes note, however, that a group of developing countries* has expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome, highlighting concerns around equity and inclusivity within the OECD Inclusive Framework; regrets that Pillar 1 on reallocation of taxing rights has still not entered into force and calls for the acceleration of its implementation, ensuring a fair reallocation of taxing rights to market jurisdictions, particularly benefiting developing countries*; calls for the EU and its Member States to ensure that the agreed global minimum corporate tax rate of 15 % for multinational enterprises is effectively applied, and urges the EU to support capacity building initiatives in developing* countries to effectively implement that minimum tax rate, ensuring they can benefit from the new rules and increase their domestic resource mobilisation;

    53. Urges the international community to take concrete steps in the creation and implementation of a UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation; takes the view that this UN Convention on Tax should be designed with a view to ensuring a fair division of taxing rights between nation states, and, while duly considering national tax sovereignty, support efforts to tackle harmful tax practices and illicit financial flows; stresses, in this context, that the EU should play a proactive role in enabling developing countries* to mobilise domestic resources, in particular through enhanced tax governance, and that the EU should take the lead in combating illicit financial flows;

    54. Advocates further assistance for developing countries* and international cooperation for the purpose of strengthening tax systems, transparency and accountability in public financial management systems and of increasing domestic resource mobilisation, including through the digitalisation of tax systems and administrations;

    55. Supports the decision of G20 finance ministers to ensure that ultra-high net worth individuals are taxed effectively; considers that Brazil’s initiative at the latest G20 summit for a coordinated minimum tax on ultrahigh net worth individuals equal to 2 % of their wealth, which it is estimated would raise up to USD 250 billion annually, is worth further consideration;

    56. Emphasises the need to continue working on efforts to combat illicit financial flows, in particular out of low- and middle-income countries, and corruption, inter alia by investing in human capacities and skills, digitalisation, building up accessible and interoperable data, strengthening governance structures, enhancing regulatory frameworks and promoting regional cooperation;

    57. Recalls that the extractive sector in Africa is particularly prone to illicit outflows; takes the view that the review of tax treaties should aim to strengthen the bargaining position of host governments so they can obtain better returns from their natural resources and stimulate diversification of their economies; in addition, believes that the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) should be made mandatory and extended to focus not only on governments but also on producer firms and commodity trading companies;

    58. Advocates the creation of a global beneficial ownership registry to enhance transparency and combat tax evasion and illicit financial flows, building on existing EU initiatives in this area;

    Official development assistance (ODA) and financing development cooperation

    59. Emphasises that, despite the EU and its Member States remaining the largest global ODA provider, accounting for 42 % of global ODA in 2022 and 2023, the collective ODA/gross national income ratio has declined from 0.56 % in 2022 to 0.51 % in 2023, falling well short of the 0.7 % target; calls for urgent action to address the cumulative shortfall in meeting the 0.7 % target; is alarmed by the worrying trends that further cut ODA in many Member States and in the EU budget as well as by other leading global donors, leading to a further increase in the global financing gap for development; encourages Member States to increase their ODA budgets in the light of the current geopolitical situation; stresses the need to use development cooperation efficiently, to invest more specifically in those partner countries that promote, among other things, democratic reform efforts, access to social security systems and economic self-reliance;

    60. Rejects the idea that the traditional donor-recipient model has become obsolete and that ODA is no longer relevant; underlines that, despite evolving financing mechanisms and partnerships, ODA remains a vital tool for poverty reduction, addressing inequalities, and supporting the most vulnerable communities, particularly in fragile countries and LDCs;

    61. Urges the EU and the Member States to prioritise reaching the immediate target of devoting 0.15 % of GNI to ODA for LDCs, and to take concrete actions to fulfil this commitment, with a view to rapidly scaling up efforts to achieve a level of 0.20 % of GNI as ODA for LDCs; notes that the impact of development finance also depends on the efficiency of implementation of funding;

    62. Urges the Commission to increase efforts to implement the development finance objectives under the GAP III, namely that 85 % of all new actions integrate a gender perspective and support gender equality;

    63. Regrets that women’s rights organisations receive less than 1 % of global ODA and SDG5 remains among the least-funded SDGs, although improvement on SDG5 has been shown to be a cross-cutting driver for sustainable development; reiterates that women-led organisations are often best adapted to respond to humanitarian crises; calls on the international community to set ambitious targets for funding to women’s rights organisations;

    64. Expresses concern over the increasing trend of tied aid, which reached EUR 4.4 billion (6.5 % of total bilateral ODA) in 2022, and calls for measures to reverse this trend and ensure that ODA primarily benefits partner countries rather than donor economies;

    65. Calls on the EU and the Member States to devote 15 % of their ODA to education by 2030;

    66. Calls on the EU and the Member States to ensure that ODA includes long-term, sustainable funding for United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), guaranteeing access to essential services for Palestinian refugees and preventing further humanitarian crises;

    67. Emphasises that education must remain a central pillar of EU development assistance, including continued support for UNRWA schools, which provide education to over 500 000 Palestinian children, ensuring their right to quality education despite ongoing displacement and conflict;

    68. Stresses the need for a comprehensive approach to development financing, aligning the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) – Global Europe with the SDGs and the Paris Agreement, while ensuring that the allocation of EUR 79.5 billion for 2021-2027 is used effectively to address global challenges; urges the creation of a system for Parliamentary oversight of NDICI-capital flows to ensure their alignment with the dedicated targets for development;

    69. Reiterates the urgent need to rethink and reform global governance of international development cooperation given the suspension of USAID and reductions in global aid by countries such as the UK, Netherlands, Belgium etc.; stresses that reform to the international financial architecture must be underpinned by a commitment to multilateralism and fit for a more crisis-prone world;

    °

    ° °

    70. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, the European Investment Bank and the United Nations.

    MIL OSI Europe News