MIL-OSI United Kingdom: How we protected the UK and space in June 2025

Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

News story

How we protected the UK and space in June 2025

This report was issued in July 2025 and covers the time period 1 June 2025 to 30 June 2025 inclusive.

The National Space Operations Centre is led by the UK Space Agency and UK Space Command in partnership with the Met Office.

June saw reduced levels of space activity with both uncontrolled re-entry and collision alerts at levels below the 12-month rolling average.

All NSpOC warning and protection services functioned as expected throughout the period.

Re-entry Analysis

June saw a 14% decrease in the number of objects re-entering Earth’s atmosphere, tracked by NSpOC, when compared with the previous month.

Of the 55 objects that re-entered, 50 were satellites and 5 were rocket bodies.

July: 44, August: 89, September: 50, October: 35, November: 47, December: 83, January: 115, February: 129, March: 85, April: 92, May: 64, June: 55

In-Space Collision Avoidance

Collision risks to UK-licensed satellites were lower in June with a 19% decline when compared with May, caused by fewer interactions between UK licenced objects and other spacecraft or debris over the previous 30 days.

July: 1,795, August: 2,137, September: 3,041, October: 3,181, November: 2,722, December: 2,142, January: 2,694, February: 2,567, March: 2,588, April: 2,620, May: 1,546, June: 1,259

Number of Objects in Space

The in-orbit population increased in June, with a net addition of 235 objects to the US Satellite Catalogue.

July: 28,864, August: 29,669, September: 29,649, October: 29,657, November: 29,816, December: 29,867, January: 29,996, February: 30,027, March: 30,124, April: 30,253, May: 30,504, June: 30,739

The number of Resident Space Objects (RSOs) reported may be subject to small adjustments over time as the way objects are tracked is refined. Figures in this report reflect the most current available data and may differ slightly from those published in previous months

Fragmentation Analysis

There have been no new fragmentation (break-up) incidents this month.

Space weather

June saw an increase in space weather activity, particularly geomagnetic events, compared to the previous month

Comments

The National Space Operations Centre combines and coordinates UK civil and military space domain awareness capabilities to enable operations, promote prosperity and protect UK interests in space and on Earth from space-related threats, risks and hazards.

Published 18 July 2025

MIL OSI United Kingdom –

July 19, 2025

MIL-OSI Africa: SA strengthens science and innovation cooperation with Algeria

Source: Government of South Africa

SA strengthens science and innovation cooperation with Algeria

The Department of Science, Technology, and Innovation (DSTI) has signed another significant partnership aimed at enhancing science, technology, and innovation cooperation with Algeria.

The partnership, known as the Plan of Action for 2026-2028, currently focuses on several strategic areas, including nuclear science and technology, the co-founding and implementation of the African Laser Centre (ALC), and the establishment of the Nanosciences African Network.

In addition, it emphasises the transfer of technical knowledge and equipment, as well as advancements in space propulsion and telecommunications.

The Plan of Action will also explore new areas of cooperation such as nanotechnology, renewable energy, nanomedicine, food and energy security, health innovation and vaccine development, artificial intelligence and emerging Technologies and others.

As much as this is a joint programme, South Africa’s National Research Foundation (NRF) will lead its implementation.

As a government-mandated research and science development agency, the NRF funds research, the development of high-end human capacity and critical research infrastructure to promote knowledge production across all disciplinary fields.

This comes after Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation Blade Nzimande led a high-level South African delegation on a comprehensive visit focused on science, technology and innovation (STI) in Tunisia and Algeria.

The signing ceremony was preceded by an opening ceremony, where Algeria’s Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Kamel Bidar, and Nzimande delivered their keynote speeches.

Nzimande reflected on the special bond between South Africa and Algeria. In addition, he said the two nations share a strong commitment to the advancement of the African continent.

“Similarly, our two countries also share a firm commitment to the realisation of a more just and humane world that will be underpinned by the values of human solidarity, peaceful coexistence, and a respect for the sovereignty of all nations, regardless of their size.”

Emphasising the strategic importance of cooperation in STI between South Africa and Algeria, Nzimande stated, “Both Algeria and South Africa recognise that, to address our urgent national development goals and achieve higher levels of development, we must consistently enhance our national scientific capabilities.”

The Minister believes that the countries’ shared conviction about the role of STI in development and commitment to cooperation is, in a way, a continuation of their liberation struggles.

“But now against underdevelopment and for prosperity in our respective countries, and on the rest of the continent. I must also say that we are highly impressed by the investments that you have made in building your public science system and its constituent institutions.”

The department emphasised that signing the Plan of Action between South Africa and Algeria is crucial for reinforcing both countries’ commitment to supporting the implementation of key development programs on the African continent.

These programmes include Agenda 2063, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), and the African Union’s Science, Technology, and Innovation Strategy for Africa (STISA-2034).

On Tuesday, South Africa and Tunisia signed a landmark agreement aimed at scaling up collaboration in STI in a bid to deepen bilateral cooperation.

The agreement, signed during the official visit by Nzimande to Tunisia, forms part of the Scaling up Tunisia–South Africa Strategy.

It includes a detailed plan of action and the formal minutes of a joint research call meeting. – SAnews.gov.za

Gabisile
Fri, 07/18/2025 – 10:41

MIL OSI Africa –

July 19, 2025

MIL-OSI Russia: China’s Foreign Ministry urges Philippines to take concrete measures to ensure safety of Chinese students

Translation. Region: Russian Federal

Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

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

BEIJING, July 18 (Xinhua) — Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian on Friday called on the Philippine side to take concrete measures to ensure the safety, dignity and legitimate rights and interests of Chinese students in the Philippines.

China’s Ministry of Education issued a warning to students studying in the Philippines on Friday, urging Chinese students to assess security risks and raise their awareness.

At a regular press conference, Lin Jian said the public security situation in the Philippines is deteriorating, with crimes and searches against Chinese citizens on the rise. The warning issued by the Chinese government is a responsible and reasonable measure to ensure the safety and rights of Chinese students, the diplomat added.

“We once again warn those planning to study in the Philippines to conduct a risk assessment,” he stressed. -0-

Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

.

MIL OSI Russia News –

July 18, 2025

MIL-OSI Analysis: EU efforts to measure companies’ environmental impacts have global effects. Here’s how to make them more just

Source: The Conversation – France – By Mira Manini Tiwari, Research Associate at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute

If you choose to buy a sustainable product at the supermarket, or invest in a sustainable portfolio at your bank, how far does that sustainability reach? Does the product’s “sustainable” label account for the environmental and labour costs where the raw materials were extracted? Does the portfolio include renewable energy in countries where the investment is needed most?

In the EU, whether you are an individual or represent a company or financial institution, these questions are governed by the bloc’s non-financial reporting (NFR) regulations. The latest ones include the European Sustainable Reporting Standards (ESRS), which are gradually coming into force through 2029. The ESRS set out reporting standards and requirements, while the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) determines which companies these standards apply to, to what extent, and when.

These EU regulations also have strong implications for the Majority World, the countries and territories outside Europe and North America where most people live, at a time when global, systemic policy effects are more important than ever. As supply chains become longer and more interconnected, and as communities involved in them confront the fragilities of economic, political and climate shifts, the regulations that govern the sustainability of these chains and that enable or prohibit participation in them must be crafted and implemented to minimise harm to the most vulnerable.

In an article in Environment and Development Economics, my co-authors and I developed a set of proposals to improve the global sustainability of the NFR regulations. These call for collaborative development of regulations across the value chain, better data accessibility, measuring of and accounting for cross-border environmental damage, and greater integrity and engagement from financial actors.

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

Cooperation, not compliance

As the ESRS come into force, reporting requirements are being applied to companies’ full value chains. This means that Majority World actors, such as those that extract raw materials for European products, may be indirectly subjected to the NFR regulations. This is important, as it holds companies and consumers, EU and non, accountable for the ethics of the goods and services they rely on. However, when regulations are built without directly involving those they will affect, they risk causing collateral, longer-term damage. For example, reporting requirements that feel inaccessible to smaller organisations can foster distrust and backlash, or cause companies to withdraw from contexts where data are less accessible, taking away key sources of income for communities.

While global climate negotiations have come under public scrutiny for their Minority World dominance, there has been relatively less scrutiny of global organisations governing financial and corporate sustainability standards. On their boards, the Majority World is conspicuous by its absence, demonstrating the dearth of attention to its agency in enabling greater sustainability, both locally and globally. European investors and policymakers are already shifting capital from the Majority World back to the EU in response to the NFR regulations, citing the difficulty of accounting for activities along the length of value chains. The damage falls on livelihoods, industries and essential investments, such as in renewable energy, which can suddenly disappear.

Developing NFR regulations in collaboration with all stakeholders, rather than only at the top, can provide a regulatory landscape that is, from the outset, more implementable, accessible and effective in the long run.

Democratic data and digitalisation

Efficacy in global NFR regulations relies on global data cooperation, which could lower the administrative burden on those reporting and enable greater accountability. The increasing number of EU NFR regulations do not exist in a vacuum: they have been accompanied by shifts in global regulations and a proliferation of national regulations. With regulations expanding to cover the full value chain, actors are increasingly likely to be subjected to multiple regulatory bodies, or have to provide data to reporting entities upstream. The time, financial resources and practical challenges involved in identifying, collecting, processing and sharing data are considerable, both for those submitting data and those receiving and verifying them. This makes divestment or significant losses more likely. Furthermore, the expansion of regulations can result in isolated streams of data and closed-circuit processes, which, in turn, cut out civil society organisations and individuals who use data to help hold firms to account for their social and environmental responsibilities.

Aside from EU calls for a European Single Access Point for corporate data, Majority World contexts offer particularly fertile ground for reimagining and building data infrastructures. Digitalisation in low- and middle-income countries is growing rapidly, and demonstrates the ability to make digital financial and business instruments democratic and accessible to those with the fewest resources. Such efforts should involve statisticians and local data experts from the outset to determine and harmonise appropriate data, along with transnational entities with the mandate of establishing links across data systems.

Support for international emissions accounting

Corporate reporting on environmental impacts must be accompanied by their reduction. Indeed, the work and transparency required to identify impacts in the first place, let alone mitigate them, underpins decisions to simply detach from the system, moving economic activity to local contexts where impacts are more traceable.

Firms that cannot afford to bring their activities onshore must account for emissions that occur from assets not directly under their ownership or control, which are known as Scope 3 emissions. In some cases, these emissions constitute well over half of a firm’s total value chain emissions. However, the implementation of the ESRS has designated the reporting of Scope 3 emissions, and climate impacts in general, to be largely discretionary, under the condition that firms provide evaluations of the economic and material implications of a given activity in their value chains.

The glaring gaps between some firms’ targets, actions and declarations are in part enabled by reporting systems that allow the omission of more distant climate risks and impacts, maintaining the misalignment between climate pledges and actions aimed at achieving them. While the number of firms showing readiness to comply with Scope 3 accounting is increasing, data on global investor preferences suggests that investors do not necessarily prioritise companies’ performance on these emissions when making investment decisions. For ethics to exist on the ground, they must be prioritised in financial flows.

Investment with integrity

In light of the above, financial institutions have a core responsibility to engage with NFR. These institutions’ economic leverage and centrality in the value chains and activities of several sectors give them incentivising power to catalyse a shift from the submission of reports to the building of living data systems and the achievement of fuller value chain accountability. Currently, many investors are not willing to accept reductions in their returns in exchange for the pursuit of social or environmental goals. Surveys suggest this is in part due to perceptions of low quality of environmental information, limited ability to assess the data received, and the difficulty of making investment decisions accordingly. In the current landscape of Minority World-led reporting, such mistrust is likely to be greater with respect to Majority World data, reiterating the need for data systems and reporting mechanisms built on equal footing.

Financial institutions can operate proactively, using their privileged access to data to bridge Minority and Majority World actors engaging in sustainable practices, such as microfinance bodies, local communities and relevant investors. Doing so could plug, at least in part, an information and trust gap that can hinder Minority World firms’ investment in unfamiliar contexts.

Regulating for whom?

The research underpinning our article initially involved a recommendation on streamlining and supporting reporting by small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which account for more than 60% of the EU’s corporate emissions. For these firms, especially, regulators face a critical balance between lowering the entry barrier of the reporting ecosystem and setting robust environmental targets. The nature, data points and timelines of reporting under the CSRD are currently under review following calls for simplification and greater support, and decision-makers are wrestling with the tension between accessibility and integrity.

Our work also included a recommendation that turns from the supply side, the focus of the preceding proposals, to the demand side: the data and sustainability literacy of the individual who walks into the supermarket to buy that sustainable product, or wants family investments to do more good than harm. Across sectors – public policy, investment and citizen engagement – resources must be dedicated to these literacies, so that actors are better placed to hold each other to account. Regulation becomes easily abstracted, reduced to figures and PDFs, databases and scores. Beneath each regulation is a world of citizens whose homes, livelihoods and health depend on them.

The author was affiliated with the University of Siena during the period in which she and her colleagues did the original work for the scholarly article that is mentioned in this piece. The author’s affiliation came via a project that, overall, was financed by the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR). The scholarly article and the present article were not outputs for the project.

– ref. EU efforts to measure companies’ environmental impacts have global effects. Here’s how to make them more just – https://theconversation.com/eu-efforts-to-measure-companies-environmental-impacts-have-global-effects-heres-how-to-make-them-more-just-261226

MIL OSI Analysis –

July 18, 2025

MIL-OSI Analysis: EU efforts to measure companies’ environmental impacts have global effects. Here’s how to make them more just

Source: The Conversation – France – By Mira Manini Tiwari, Research Associate at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute

If you choose to buy a sustainable product at the supermarket, or invest in a sustainable portfolio at your bank, how far does that sustainability reach? Does the product’s “sustainable” label account for the environmental and labour costs where the raw materials were extracted? Does the portfolio include renewable energy in countries where the investment is needed most?

In the EU, whether you are an individual or represent a company or financial institution, these questions are governed by the bloc’s non-financial reporting (NFR) regulations. The latest ones include the European Sustainable Reporting Standards (ESRS), which are gradually coming into force through 2029. The ESRS set out reporting standards and requirements, while the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) determines which companies these standards apply to, to what extent, and when.

These EU regulations also have strong implications for the Majority World, the countries and territories outside Europe and North America where most people live, at a time when global, systemic policy effects are more important than ever. As supply chains become longer and more interconnected, and as communities involved in them confront the fragilities of economic, political and climate shifts, the regulations that govern the sustainability of these chains and that enable or prohibit participation in them must be crafted and implemented to minimise harm to the most vulnerable.

In an article in Environment and Development Economics, my co-authors and I developed a set of proposals to improve the global sustainability of the NFR regulations. These call for collaborative development of regulations across the value chain, better data accessibility, measuring of and accounting for cross-border environmental damage, and greater integrity and engagement from financial actors.

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

Cooperation, not compliance

As the ESRS come into force, reporting requirements are being applied to companies’ full value chains. This means that Majority World actors, such as those that extract raw materials for European products, may be indirectly subjected to the NFR regulations. This is important, as it holds companies and consumers, EU and non, accountable for the ethics of the goods and services they rely on. However, when regulations are built without directly involving those they will affect, they risk causing collateral, longer-term damage. For example, reporting requirements that feel inaccessible to smaller organisations can foster distrust and backlash, or cause companies to withdraw from contexts where data are less accessible, taking away key sources of income for communities.

While global climate negotiations have come under public scrutiny for their Minority World dominance, there has been relatively less scrutiny of global organisations governing financial and corporate sustainability standards. On their boards, the Majority World is conspicuous by its absence, demonstrating the dearth of attention to its agency in enabling greater sustainability, both locally and globally. European investors and policymakers are already shifting capital from the Majority World back to the EU in response to the NFR regulations, citing the difficulty of accounting for activities along the length of value chains. The damage falls on livelihoods, industries and essential investments, such as in renewable energy, which can suddenly disappear.

Developing NFR regulations in collaboration with all stakeholders, rather than only at the top, can provide a regulatory landscape that is, from the outset, more implementable, accessible and effective in the long run.

Democratic data and digitalisation

Efficacy in global NFR regulations relies on global data cooperation, which could lower the administrative burden on those reporting and enable greater accountability. The increasing number of EU NFR regulations do not exist in a vacuum: they have been accompanied by shifts in global regulations and a proliferation of national regulations. With regulations expanding to cover the full value chain, actors are increasingly likely to be subjected to multiple regulatory bodies, or have to provide data to reporting entities upstream. The time, financial resources and practical challenges involved in identifying, collecting, processing and sharing data are considerable, both for those submitting data and those receiving and verifying them. This makes divestment or significant losses more likely. Furthermore, the expansion of regulations can result in isolated streams of data and closed-circuit processes, which, in turn, cut out civil society organisations and individuals who use data to help hold firms to account for their social and environmental responsibilities.

Aside from EU calls for a European Single Access Point for corporate data, Majority World contexts offer particularly fertile ground for reimagining and building data infrastructures. Digitalisation in low- and middle-income countries is growing rapidly, and demonstrates the ability to make digital financial and business instruments democratic and accessible to those with the fewest resources. Such efforts should involve statisticians and local data experts from the outset to determine and harmonise appropriate data, along with transnational entities with the mandate of establishing links across data systems.

Support for international emissions accounting

Corporate reporting on environmental impacts must be accompanied by their reduction. Indeed, the work and transparency required to identify impacts in the first place, let alone mitigate them, underpins decisions to simply detach from the system, moving economic activity to local contexts where impacts are more traceable.

Firms that cannot afford to bring their activities onshore must account for emissions that occur from assets not directly under their ownership or control, which are known as Scope 3 emissions. In some cases, these emissions constitute well over half of a firm’s total value chain emissions. However, the implementation of the ESRS has designated the reporting of Scope 3 emissions, and climate impacts in general, to be largely discretionary, under the condition that firms provide evaluations of the economic and material implications of a given activity in their value chains.

The glaring gaps between some firms’ targets, actions and declarations are in part enabled by reporting systems that allow the omission of more distant climate risks and impacts, maintaining the misalignment between climate pledges and actions aimed at achieving them. While the number of firms showing readiness to comply with Scope 3 accounting is increasing, data on global investor preferences suggests that investors do not necessarily prioritise companies’ performance on these emissions when making investment decisions. For ethics to exist on the ground, they must be prioritised in financial flows.

Investment with integrity

In light of the above, financial institutions have a core responsibility to engage with NFR. These institutions’ economic leverage and centrality in the value chains and activities of several sectors give them incentivising power to catalyse a shift from the submission of reports to the building of living data systems and the achievement of fuller value chain accountability. Currently, many investors are not willing to accept reductions in their returns in exchange for the pursuit of social or environmental goals. Surveys suggest this is in part due to perceptions of low quality of environmental information, limited ability to assess the data received, and the difficulty of making investment decisions accordingly. In the current landscape of Minority World-led reporting, such mistrust is likely to be greater with respect to Majority World data, reiterating the need for data systems and reporting mechanisms built on equal footing.

Financial institutions can operate proactively, using their privileged access to data to bridge Minority and Majority World actors engaging in sustainable practices, such as microfinance bodies, local communities and relevant investors. Doing so could plug, at least in part, an information and trust gap that can hinder Minority World firms’ investment in unfamiliar contexts.

Regulating for whom?

The research underpinning our article initially involved a recommendation on streamlining and supporting reporting by small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which account for more than 60% of the EU’s corporate emissions. For these firms, especially, regulators face a critical balance between lowering the entry barrier of the reporting ecosystem and setting robust environmental targets. The nature, data points and timelines of reporting under the CSRD are currently under review following calls for simplification and greater support, and decision-makers are wrestling with the tension between accessibility and integrity.

Our work also included a recommendation that turns from the supply side, the focus of the preceding proposals, to the demand side: the data and sustainability literacy of the individual who walks into the supermarket to buy that sustainable product, or wants family investments to do more good than harm. Across sectors – public policy, investment and citizen engagement – resources must be dedicated to these literacies, so that actors are better placed to hold each other to account. Regulation becomes easily abstracted, reduced to figures and PDFs, databases and scores. Beneath each regulation is a world of citizens whose homes, livelihoods and health depend on them.

The author was affiliated with the University of Siena during the period in which she and her colleagues did the original work for the scholarly article that is mentioned in this piece. The author’s affiliation came via a project that, overall, was financed by the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR). The scholarly article and the present article were not outputs for the project.

– ref. EU efforts to measure companies’ environmental impacts have global effects. Here’s how to make them more just – https://theconversation.com/eu-efforts-to-measure-companies-environmental-impacts-have-global-effects-heres-how-to-make-them-more-just-261226

MIL OSI Analysis –

July 18, 2025

MIL-OSI Analysis: Immigrants in Europe and North America earn 18% less than natives – here’s why

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Are Skeie Hermansen, Professor of Sociology, University of Oslo

F Armstrong Photography/Shutterstock

As many countries grapple with ageing populations, falling birthrates, labour shortages and fiscal pressures, the ability to successfully integrate immigrants is becoming an increasingly pressing matter.

However, our new study found that salaries of immigrants in Europe and North America are nearly 18% lower than those of natives, as foreign-born workers struggle to access higher-paying jobs. To reach this conclusion, we analysed the salaries of 13.5 million people in nine immigrant-receiving countries: Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United States. Data was taken from the period of 2016 to 2019.

Immigrants in these countries earned less primarily because they were unable to access higher-paying jobs. Three-quarters of the migrant pay gap was the result of a lack of access to well-paid jobs, while only one-quarter of the gap was attributed to pay differences between migrant and native-born workers in the same job.

Spain has the largest gap, while Sweden’s is the smallest.
Author’s own elaboration

The high-income countries we examined in Europe and North America all face similar demographic challenges, with low fertility rates resulting in an ageing population and labour shortages. Pro-natalist policies are unlikely to change this demographic destiny, but sound immigration policies can help.

Across these countries with vastly different labour market institutions and immigrant populations, a common theme emerged: countries are not making good use of immigrants’ human capital.

Stark regional differences

We found that immigrants earn 17.9% less than natives on average, although the pay gap varied widely by country. In Spain, a relatively recent large-scale receiver of immigrants, the pay gap was over 29%. In Sweden – a country where many employed immigrants find work in the public sector – it was just 7%. These results don’t include immigrants who are unemployed or in the informal economy.

Where immigrants were born also mattered. The highest average overall pay gaps were for immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa (26.1%) and the Middle East and North Africa (23.7%). For immigrants from Europe, North America and other Western countries, the difference in average pay compared to natives was a much more modest 9%.

Migrant pay gaps according to region of origin. The minus sign (−) before figures indicates that immigrants earn less than natives. Note that data for second-generation immigrants is unavailable in France, Spain and the US.
Author’s own elaboration

Our results suggest that the children of immigrants faced substantially better earning prospects than their parents. For the countries where second-generation data was available – Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden – the gap narrowed over time, and the children of immigrants had a substantially smaller earnings gap, earning an average of 5.7% less than workers with native-born parents.

The struggle to access higher-paying jobs

Beyond quantifying the gap, we wanted to understand the roots of pay disparities. To create better policies, it is important to know whether immigrants are paid less than natives when they’re doing the same job in the same company, or whether these differences arise because immigrants typically work in lower-paying jobs.

By a wide margin, we found that immigrants end up working in lower-paying industries, occupations and companies; three-quarters of the gap was due to this type of labour-market sorting. The pay gap for the same work in the same company was just 4.6% on average across the nine countries.

These differences represent a failure of immigration policy to incorporate immigrants, as immigrants are relegated to jobs where they cannot contribute to their full potential. Our analyses rule out that the lack of access to higher-paying jobs simply reflects a difference in skill between immigrants and native-born workers. We also found that the size of the pay gap and the key role of unequal access to well-paid jobs is similar for immigrants with and without a university education.

This means that the immigrant-native pay gap in large part represents a market inefficiency and policy failure, with significant social consequences for both immigrants and immigrant-receiving countries.

Leer más:
What Britons and Europeans really think about immigration – new analysis

Policy implications

Although equal pay for equal work policies may seem like a viable solution, they won’t close the immigrant pay gap. This is because they only help those who have already secured work, but immigrants face barriers to employment that begin long before even applying for a job. This includes convoluted processes to validate university degrees or other qualifications, and exclusion from professional networks.

The policy focus should therefore be on improving access to better jobs.

To make this happen, governments should invest in programmes such as language training, education and vocational skills for immigrants. They should ensure immigrants have early access to employment information, networks, job-search assistance and employer referrals. They should implement standardised and transparent recognition of foreign degrees and credentials, helping immigrants to access jobs matching their skills and training.

This is particularly important for Europe as it races to attract – and retain – skilled immigrants who may be having second thoughts about the US in the Trump era. In the European Union, around 40% of university-educated non-EU immigrants are employed in jobs that do not require a degree, an underutilisation of skills known as brain waste.

Some countries are already taking steps to remedy this. Germany’s Skilled Immigration Act – which took effect in 2024 – allows foreign graduates to work while their degrees are being formally recognised. In 2025, France reformed its Passeport Talent permit to attract skilled professionals and address labour shortages, especially in healthcare.

These kinds of policies help ensure that foreign-born workers can contribute at their full capacity, and that countries can reap the full benefits of immigration in terms of productivity gains, higher tax revenue and reduced inequality.

If immigrants can’t get access to good jobs, their skills are underutilised and society loses out. Smart immigration policy doesn’t end at the border – it starts there.

Are Skeie Hermansen has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 851149), the Research Council of Norway (grant 287016), and the Center for Advanced Study at The Norwegian Academy of Science
and Letters (Young CAS grant 2019/2020).

Marta M. Elvira receives funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, grant PID2020-
118807RB-I00/AEI /10.13039/501100011033

Andrew Penner no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Immigrants in Europe and North America earn 18% less than natives – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/immigrants-in-europe-and-north-america-earn-18-less-than-natives-heres-why-261188

MIL OSI Analysis –

July 18, 2025

MIL-OSI Analysis: Chimamanda’s Lagos homecoming wasn’t just a book launch, it was a cultural moment

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Tinashe Mushakavanhu, Assistant Professor, Harvard University

When the announcement of Chimamanda Adichie Ngozi’s latest novel Dream Count was made, it was regarded as a major event in African literature. The internationally celebrated Nigerian writer had not published a novel in the past 12 years, and her long-awaited return stirred both anticipation and speculation. In the post-COVID context in which the book comes, so much has changed in the world.

The first leg of her three city homecoming book tour coincided with my stay in Lagos as a curatorial fellow at Guest Artist Space Foundation, dedicated to facilitating cultural exchange and supporting creative practices. After Lagos, Chimamanda took the tour to Nigeria’s capital city Abuja and finally Enugu, where she was born and grew up.

As a scholar of African literature, I arrived here in search of literary Lagos. But my attachment to the city may also just be romantic, a nostalgia born out of years of reading about it in fiction. No doubt, Lagos is a city of imagination and creativity.

Chimamanda’s book event was a reminder that literary celebrity, when it happens in Africa, can exist on its own terms. It’s rooted in a popular imaginary that embraces both the writer and the spectacle.

Lagos superstar

The launch in Lagos took place at a conference centre on the evening of Friday 27 June. The MUSON is a multipurpose civic auditorium located in the centre of Lagos Island which can accommodate up to 1,000 guests. And on this night, the auditorium was packed.

When I arrive, the scene outside is buzzing. A crowd gathers in front of a large canvas banner bearing a radiant image of the author. It’s more than just decoration; it’s a backdrop. It is an occasion for the selfie, a digital marker that you were there. There is even a hashtag for this: #dreamcountlagos. People take turns posing in front of it, curating their presence in the frame of Chimamanda’s aura.

The atmosphere is festive, electric. And yet beneath the surface shimmer is something more urgent: a hunger for story, for presence, for return. Perhaps that explains why people come not just to witness, but to be counted.

Inside the lobby, piles of Chimamanda’s books are neatly arranged on long tables. People are not just buying a copy. They are buying several in the hope that the author will autograph them. The sight is striking, almost surreal. In many parts of the continent, a book launch is often a quiet affair. Writers are lucky to sell a handful of copies. But this is something else entirely. This is not just a book launch, it is a cultural moment.

It would have been easy to mistake the event for a political townhall. There was a VIP section reserved for the who’s who of Lagos, but those class distinctions easily dissolved into the collective energy of the room. The auditorium was filled with genuine enthusiasm.

Even after a delay of more than an hour, when Chimamanda finally walked in, she was met with rapturous applause. She wore a bright yellow dress, an Instagrammable outfit, suited for the many fans who rushed forward to take selfies with her. Chimamanda, no doubt, is as much a fashion icon as she is a literary figure.

On stage, she was joined by media personality Ebuka Obi-Uchendu, widely known as the host of the reality TV show Big Brother Africa. But here, he was also something more intimate: the author’s friend. Chimamanda even credited him with being a “great reader”. This is a rare compliment in a literary world that often separates celebrity from critical engagement.

Their conversation was relaxed and full of laughter, offering the audience both intimacy and insight. Chimamanda addressed the question that had lingered for years: her decade-long silence. She spoke candidly of writer’s block, of the grief that came with losing both her parents in quick succession, and how that loss eventually reignited her desire to write.

Dream Count, she explained, is shaped by that rupture. It is one of the major post-COVID novels from Africa, and centres on the lives of four women. It is a book about love, friendship and independence.

Africans do read

When she spoke about her characters on stage, it was as though she was talking about relatives that the audience recognised. They responded by shouting out the characters’ names, to the delight of the author.

When I asked people about the launch afterwards, many said that it was a very Nigerian event – big, colourful, exuberant, festive. It was indeed a celebration that felt communal, even joyous. It was also a public demonstration of how literature can still command space and attention, not just in private reading rooms or crammed bookstores, but on a civic scale.

This was a remarkable event because it defied the tired cliché that Africans do not read. People, mostly young, came out in their hundreds. They bought books, they took selfies with their “favourite” author, they screamed the names of fictional characters as though greeting friends.

But more significant was Chimamanda’s choice to work with a local publisher, Narrative Landscape Press, which produced the Nigerian edition of Dream Count that is now available and accessible locally, at the same time as its release in Europe and North America. That alone is a radical act.

In returning to Nigeria to launch her book, Chimamanda also disrupts the assumption that African literary prestige must only be validated abroad. Even though she belongs to a cohort of African writers shaped by the diaspora, she actively insists on presence – on homecoming – not as simply nostalgia, but as active engagement.

Of course, Chimamanda is an exception. Her stature as a global literary figure, combined with her deep connection to home, allows her to move between worlds with remarkable ease. Few writers command the kind of multigenerational, cross-class attention she does. I found myself wishing though that more book launches could carry this same sense of occasion, of meaning, of return. That they could gather people in such numbers, not just to celebrate the writer, but to affirm the African book as something still worth gathering for.

And perhaps that is what made this book launch unforgettable: not just the celebrity or the spectacle, but the sense that literature still matters here, and that it belongs to the people.

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

– ref. Chimamanda’s Lagos homecoming wasn’t just a book launch, it was a cultural moment – https://theconversation.com/chimamandas-lagos-homecoming-wasnt-just-a-book-launch-it-was-a-cultural-moment-261112

MIL OSI Analysis –

July 18, 2025

MIL-OSI Analysis: Why did the government hide a data leak about Afghans working with British forces and why did the courts finally reveal it?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alexandros Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Media Law, University of Essex

William Barton/Shutterstock

When thousands of Afghans were quietly flown to the UK under a secret relocation scheme, few knew it was triggered by an error. A defence official had accidentally leaked the personal data of nearly 19,000 Afghan nationals who had worked with British forces and were at risk of Taliban reprisals.

It has now also been revealed that the leaked list contained the identities of UK special forces and spies.

Even fewer knew that this misstep was being kept from the public by a rare and powerful legal device: a superinjunction. Now, after nearly two years of legal wrangling, the High Court has lifted that order, reopening the conversation about when secrecy in the justice system goes too far.

What is a superinjunction?

An injunction is a court order that stops someone from doing something (like publishing a story) or requires them to do something (like taking down an online post or handing back confidential documents).

A superinjunction goes one step further and does two things: it bans the publication of certain information (usually to protect privacy, safety or national security) and also bans anyone from revealing that the court order even exists.

In essence, it is a tool that provides legal invisibility: the story is hidden and so is the fact that it is being hidden. While an injunction works like a padlock on a filing cabinet, a superinjunction means you cannot even tell anyone the cabinet is even there.

Superinjunctions are exceptionally rare and controversial, precisely because they run counter to the principle of open justice. This is the idea that courts must operate in public, and that their decisions can be seen, scrutinised and questioned. Any derogation from open justice must be continuously justified and treated with considerable caution, especially where media freedom is curtailed.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

Historically, superinjunctions have been used sparingly in cases involving blackmail, risks of violence against witnesses, the protection of children or to prevent tipping-off a subject before an order can be served (such as in fraud investigations), always with the aim of preventing harm or ensuring that justice is done.

The superinjunction committee (which was established in 2010 by Lord Neuberger to review growing concerns about such orders) made clear that the use of these legal tools must meet strict tests of necessity and proportionality. And, that they are only granted where serious harm (for example to life, safety or the administration of justice) is credibly at stake.

Why was a superinjunction granted in the Afghan data breach case?

In this case, the government argued that revealing the data leak could put lives in danger. The leaked spreadsheet contained names, contact details and, in some cases, family information of Afghan nationals who had applied to resettle in the UK. Many feared Taliban retaliation.

So, in September 2023, the Ministry of Defence asked the High Court for an injunction to stop media outlets from reporting on the leak. The judge did not just grant that request, he escalated it to a superinjunction, banning any mention of the case or the fact of the order.

It was described at the time as “unprecedented” in its scope. Journalists, even those who had already discovered the breach, were effectively gagged. The public had no idea any of it was happening.

Why did the court later decide to lift the secrecy?

After multiple hearings and appeals, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled on July 15 2025 that the superinjunction should be discharged once and for all. A government-commissioned review found that the leak may not have spread as widely as initially feared, and that Taliban reprisals were unlikely to be triggered solely by someone appearing on the leaked list.

The judge concluded that while the leak was deeply serious, continued secrecy was no longer necessary, and that the harm of suppressing public debate and scrutiny now outweighed the risks of disclosure. To put it plainly, the balance tipped.

Protection v cover-up

Superinjunctions are not inherently wrong. There are situations where short-term secrecy is essential, for instance for the purposes of shielding vulnerable parties like children or genuinely guarding national security.

But the Afghan case exemplifies the dangers of allowing secrecy to persist too long or too broadly. For nearly two years, the public was kept in the dark about a data breach involving tens of thousands of lives – including British citizens – and a government response that may ultimately cost the taxpayer “several billion pounds”.

In this context, secrecy risked becoming a form of institutional self-protection, shielding the Ministry of Defence and the government from political fallout, legal scrutiny and accountability, rather than safeguarding people from actual harm.

The principle of open justice is at the heart of democratic life. Superinjunctions, by their nature, run directly against that principle. There are times when secrecy might be seen as necessary, but it must always be tightly scoped and justified with evidence while serving the public interest; not convenience or image. By lifting this superinjunction, the courts affirmed that the British public has a right to know not only what went wrong, but that something went wrong at all.

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

– ref. Why did the government hide a data leak about Afghans working with British forces and why did the courts finally reveal it? – https://theconversation.com/why-did-the-government-hide-a-data-leak-about-afghans-working-with-british-forces-and-why-did-the-courts-finally-reveal-it-261437

MIL OSI Analysis –

July 18, 2025

MIL-OSI Analysis: Scroll, watch, burn: sunscreen misinformation and its real‑world damage

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachael Kent, Senior Lecturer in Digital Economy & Society Education, Department of Digital Humanities, King’s College London

Krakenimages.com/Shutterstock

On a sunny afternoon, I was scrolling through social media when I came across a video of a young woman tossing her sunscreen into a bin. “I don’t trust this stuff anymore,” she said to the camera, holding the bottle up like a piece of damning evidence.

The clip had been viewed over half a million times, with commenters applauding her for “ditching chemicals” and recommending homemade alternatives like coconut oil and zinc powder.

In my research on the effect of digital technology on health, I’ve seen how posts like this can shape real-world behaviour. And anecdotally, dermatologists have reported seeing more patients with severe sunburns or suspicious moles who say they stopped using sunscreen after watching similar videos.

Sunscreen misinformation created by social media influencers is spreading and this isn’t just a random trend. It’s being fuelled by the platforms designed to host influencer content.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

In my book, The Digital Health Self, I explain how social media platforms are not neutral arenas for sharing information. They are commercial ecosystems engineered to maximise engagement and time spent online – metrics that directly drive advertising revenue.

Content that sparks emotion – outrage, fear, inspiration – is boosted to the top of your feed. That’s why posts questioning or rejecting science often spread further than measured, evidence-based advice.

Health misinformation thrives in this environment. A personal story about throwing out sunscreen performs well because it’s dramatic and emotionally charged. Algorithms reward such content with higher visibility: likes, shares and comments all signal popularity.

Each second a user spends watching or reacting gives the platform more data – and more opportunities to serve targeted ads. This is how health misinformation becomes profitable.

In my work, I describe social media platforms as “unregulated public health platforms”. They influence what users see and believe about health, but unlike public health institutions, they’re not bound by standards for accuracy or harm reduction.

If an influencer claims sunscreen is toxic, that message won’t be factchecked or flagged – it will often be amplified. Why? Because controversy fuels engagement.

I call this environment “the credibility arena”: a space where trust is built not through expertise, but through performance and aesthetic appeal. As I write in my book: “Trust is earned not by what is known, but by how well one narrates suffering, recovery, and resilience.”

A creator crying on camera about “toxins” can feel more authentic to viewers than a calm, clinical explanation of ultraviolet radiation from a medical expert.

This shift has real consequences. Ultraviolet rays are invisible, constant and damaging. They penetrate cloud cover and harm skin even on cool days.

Decades of research, especially in countries like Australia with high skin cancer rates, show that regular use of broad-spectrum sunscreen dramatically reduces risk. And yet, myths spreading online are urging people to do the opposite: to abandon sunscreen as dangerous or unnecessary.

This trend isn’t driven solely by individual creators. It’s embedded in how content is designed, framed and presented. Algorithms prioritise short, emotionally-charged videos. Interfaces highlight trending sounds and hashtags. Recommendation systems push users toward extreme or dramatic content.

These features all shape what we see and how we interpret it. The “For You” page isn’t neutral. It’s engineered to keep you scrolling, and shock value outperforms nuance every time.

That’s why videos about “ditching chemicals” thrive, even as posts on other aspects of women’s health are shadowbanned or suppressed. Shadowbanning refers to when a platform limits the visibility of content – making it harder to find, without informing the user – often due to vague or inconsistently applied moderation rules.

The system rewards spectacle, not science. Once creators discover that a particular format, like tossing products into a bin, boosts engagement, it’s replicated over and over again. Visibility isn’t organic. It’s manufactured.

Those who throw away their sunscreen often believe they’re doing the right thing. They’re drawn to creators who feel relatable, sincere and independent — especially when official health campaigns seem cold, patronising or out of touch. But the consequences can be serious. Sun damage accumulates silently, raising skin cancer risk with every hour spent unprotected.

Sunscreen isn’t perfect. It needs to be reapplied properly and paired with shade and protective clothing. But the evidence for its effectiveness is clear and robust.

The real danger lies in a system that not only allows misinformation to spread, but also incentivises it. A system in which false claims can boost an influencer’s reach and a platform’s revenue.

To resist harmful health trends, we need to understand the systems that promote them. In the case of sunscreen, rejecting protection isn’t just a personal decision – it’s a symptom of a digital culture that turns health into content, and often profits from the harm it causes.

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

– ref. Scroll, watch, burn: sunscreen misinformation and its real‑world damage – https://theconversation.com/scroll-watch-burn-sunscreen-misinformation-and-its-real-world-damage-261137