Connect with us

News

Hundreds of elephants, wildebeests and zebras dead in Kenya amid prolonged drought | CNN

Published

on

Hundreds of elephants, wildebeests and zebras dead in Kenya amid prolonged drought | CNN



CNN
 — 

A whole bunch of elephants, wildebeests, and zebras have died throughout Kenya amid the nation’s longest drought in a long time.

“The Kenya Wildlife Service Rangers, Neighborhood Scouts, and Analysis Groups counted the deaths of 205 elephants, 512 wildebeests, 381 frequent zebras, 51 buffalos, 49 Grevy’s zebras, and 12 giraffes previously 9 months,” a report launched Friday by the nation’s Ministry of Tourism mentioned.

“The drought has negatively impacted on the herbivore populations and significantly wildebeest and zebra.”

Extended drought throughout the Horn of Africa over the previous 4 consecutive wet seasons has left some 18 million individuals affected by meals shortages in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya, in keeping with stories from the World Meals Programme.

Advertisement

The UN’s World Meteorological Group mentioned the drought is the area’s longest in 4 a long time.

In Kenya, back-to-back seasons of beneath common rainfall have brought about riverbeds to dry up and destroyed grasslands in recreation reserves, in keeping with the tourism ministry.

“The worst-affected ecosystems are house to a few of Kenya’s most-visited nationwide parks, reserves and conservancies, together with the Amboseli, Tsavo and Laikipia-Samburu areas,” its report mentioned.

On the launch of the report, Kenya’s Minister of Tourism, Wildlife and Heritage Peninah Malonza mentioned steps have been being taken to avoid wasting the lives of animals – together with digging boreholes and transporting water to dried-up water pans and dams.

Advertisement
An emaciated cow stands at the bottom of a dried-up water pan in Iresteno, a town on the border with Ethiopia, on September 1, 2022.

“The drought has brought about mortality of wildlife, largely herbivore species,” Malonza mentioned.

“The mortalities have arisen due to depletion of meals assets in addition to water shortages,” she added. In accordance with the ministry, Kenya had simply 36,000 elephants left final 12 months.

In an interview with the BBC in July, Kenya’s former cupboard secretary for wildlife and tourism Najib Balala mentioned that local weather change now kills 20 instances as many elephants as poaching.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Private equity investors trapped in China as top firms fail to find exit deals

Published

on

Private equity investors trapped in China as top firms fail to find exit deals

Stay informed with free updates

The world’s biggest private equity groups have been unable to sell or list their China-based portfolio companies this year, as Beijing’s crackdown on initial public offerings and a slowing economy leave foreign investors’ capital trapped in the country.

Among the 10 largest global private equity groups with operations in China, there is no record of any having listed a Chinese company this year or fully sold their stake through an M&A deal, figures from Dealogic show.

It is the first year for at least a decade where this has been the case, though the pace of exits has been slow since Beijing introduced restrictions on Chinese companies’ ability to list in 2021.

Advertisement

Buyout groups rely on being able to sell or list companies, typically within three to five years of buying them, in order to generate returns for the pension funds, insurance companies and others whose money they manage.

The difficulties in doing so have in effect left those investors’ funds locked away, with future returns uncertain.

“There’s a growing sense among PE investors that China may not be as systemically investable as once thought,” said Brock Silvers, chief executive of Hong Kong private equity group Kaiyuan Capital.

He said firms were facing “weakened exit strategies on multiple fronts” in China, including being affected by a slower economy and domestic regulatory pressure.

Many private equity groups expanded their presence in the world’s second-biggest economy as it grew rapidly over the past two decades. Global pension funds and others ploughed capital into the country, hoping to gain exposure to its economic boom.

Advertisement

The 10 firms invested $137bn over the past decade, but total exits amount to just $38bn, Dealogic data shows. New investment by those groups has collapsed to just $5bn since the start of 2022.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

The pace of buyout groups’ exits from deals globally has also been slowing. It was down 26 per cent in the first half of this year, according to a report by S&P Global.

But the halt in China exits is particularly stark. It has helped make some pension funds that allocate cash to private equity groups warier of exposure to the country.

“In theory, you could buy cheaply [in China] now but you need to ask what would happen if you can’t exit or if you have to hold it for longer,” said a private markets specialist at a large pension fund that is not currently investing in the country.

Advertisement

A senior executive at a major investment group that commits cash to private equity funds said they were “not expecting a lot of exits for the next couple of years at least” in China.

The data covers Blackstone, KKR, CVC, TPG, Warburg Pincus, Carlyle Group, Bain Capital, EQT, Advent International and Apollo, the 10 largest buyout groups by funds raised for private equity over the past decade, excluding those that have done no deals in China. The data does not include Blackstone real estate deals.

Private equity firms sometimes buy or sell companies without disclosing it, and any such exits may be missing from the data. The firms declined to comment.

The difficulty in cashing out has been one of the main factors deterring international buyout groups from making investments in the country, in addition to Sino-US tensions and the economic slowdown.

Jean Salata, founder of Barings Private Equity Asia, which Stockholm-based EQT bought in 2022, told the Financial Times in June that one reason the “bar is high” for China deals was that investors were asking: “How easy will it be to get liquidity on those investments five years from now?”

Advertisement

Foreign buyout groups used to rely on taking Chinese companies public in the US or other countries in order to exit their investments after a few years. But Beijing has introduced new restrictions on offshore listings since cracking down on the ride-hailing app DiDi, in the wake of its New York IPO in 2021. Listings have slowed significantly since.

In total this year, there have been just $7bn of domestic IPOs in China as of late November, compared with $46bn last year, which was already the lowest total since 2019.

The crackdown has left buyout groups searching for other options, such as selling their stakes to domestic and multinational companies and to other buyout groups. But overseas buyers are sometimes reluctant, in part because of closer US political scrutiny of the mainland.

One of the few recent exits among the 10 firms came when Carlyle sold its minority stake in the Chinese operations of McDonald’s back to the US fast-food retailer last year.

In China’s boom years before the Covid-19 pandemic, there were dozens of exits through both listings and mergers and acquisitions, and foreign private equity played a much bigger role in driving mainland activity.

Advertisement

Goldman Sachs chief executive David Solomon said at a Hong Kong conference in November that one of the reasons investors were “predominantly on the sidelines” over deploying funds in China was that “it’s been very difficult . . . to get capital out”.

Continue Reading

News

Bill Clinton is hospitalized with a fever but in good spirits, spokesperson says

Published

on

Bill Clinton is hospitalized with a fever but in good spirits, spokesperson says

Former President Bill Clinton speaks during the Democratic National Convention on Aug. 21 in Chicago.

Paul Sancya/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Paul Sancya/AP

Former President Bill Clinton was admitted Monday to MedStar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C., after developing a fever.

The 78-year-old was hospitalized in the “afternoon for testing and observation,” Angel Urena, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, said in a statement.

“He remains in good spirits and deeply appreciates the excellent care he is receiving,” Urena said.

Advertisement

Clinton, a Democrat who served two terms as president from January 1993 until January 2001, addressed the Democratic National Convention in Chicago this summer, and campaigned ahead of November’s election for the unsuccessful White House bid of Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.

In the years since Clinton left the White House, he’s faced some health scares.

In 2004, he underwent quadruple bypass surgery after experiencing prolonged chest pains and shortness of breath. Clinton returned to the hospital for surgery for a partially collapsed lung in 2005, and in 2010 he had a pair of stents implanted in a coronary artery.

Clinton responded by embracing a largely vegan diet that saw him lose weight and report improved health.

In 2021, the former president was hospitalized for six days in California while being treated for an infection that was unrelated to COVID-19, when the pandemic was still near its height.

Advertisement

An aide to the former president said then that Clinton had a urological infection that spread to his bloodstream, but was on the mend and never went into septic shock, a potentially life-threatening condition. The aide said Clinton was in an intensive care section of the hospital that time, but wasn’t receiving ICU care.

Continue Reading

News

Read the Full Matt Gaetz Report from the House Ethics Committee

Published

on

Read the Full Matt Gaetz Report from the House Ethics Committee

credibility issues, it would not rely exclusively on information provided by Mr. Greenberg in
making any findings.
Shortly after DOJ withdrew its deferral request and the Committee reauthorized its review,
the Committee sent DOJ a request for information. After three months without a response despite
repeated follow up, the Committee submitted FOIA requests to several relevant DOJ offices, which
to date have not been adequately processed.6 The Committee continued to reach out to DOJ
throughout 2023, having still not received a substantive response to its request for information.
On January 12, 2024, the Committee received its first correspondence from DOJ on the matter. At
that time, DOJ provided no substantive response or explanation for its delay; instead, DOJ simply
stated that it “do[es] not provide non-public information about law enforcement investigations that
do not result in charges.”7 This “policy” is, however, inconsistent with DOJ’s historical conduct
with respect to the Committee and its unique role in upholding the integrity of the House. 8
Thereafter, the Committee determined to issue a subpoena to DOJ to obtain records relating
to its investigation of Representative Gaetz. DOJ did not comply with the subpoena by the date
required, but suggested it remained “committed to good-faith engagement with the Committee.”
In the spirit of cooperation, the Committee provided a list of specific responsive documents, setting
999
6 The U.S. Attorney’s Office affirmatively declined the Committee’s FOIA request as “categorically exempt from
disclosure.” However, the reasons cited for not disclosing responsive records are not applicable to the Committee’s
request it did not consider the special access granted to Congress pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 522(8)(d) (stating that
FOIA “is not an authority to withhold information from Congress” even when an exemption may otherwise be
implicated), nor did it consider the overriding public interest exception, which has been applied to information that
would inform the public about proven violations of public trust (see, e.g., Columbia Packing Co., Inc v. Department
of Agriculture, 564 F.3d 495, 499 (1st Cir. 1977) (federal employees found guilty of accepting bribes);
Congressional News Syndicate v. Department of Justice, 438 F. Supp. 538, 544 (D.D.C. 1977) (misconduct by
White House staffers)).
7
8
Letter from U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Department of Justice, to Chairman Michael Guest and Ranking Member
Susan Wild, Committee on Ethics (Jan. 12, 2024).
Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Representative Don Young, H. Rept. 113-487, 113th Cong., 2d Sess. (2014)
(hereinafter Young) (discussing information and documents provided to the Committee by DOJ relating to a Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation of Representative Young); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In
the Matter of Representative James McDermott, H. Rept. 109-732, 109th Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (2006) (hereinafter
McDermott) (noting that the investigative subcommittee requested and obtained documents from DOJ regarding its
investigation of the matter); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Jay Kim, H.
Rept. 105-797, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. 79 (1998) (noting the FBI provided “valuable assistance to the Investigative
Subcommittee throughout its inquiry.”); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation Pursuant to House
Resolution 12 Concerning Alleged Illicit Use or Distribution of Drugs by Members, Officers, or Employees of the
House, H. Rept. 98-559, 98th Cong., 1 st Sess. 21 (1983) (“the Special Counsel and the Attorney General entered
into an agreement whereby the Department was to provide the Committee non-privileged results of the
Department’s drug investigation, provided that access to the material was restricted to certain named individuals and
that certain security precautions were taken.”); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of
Representative Raymond F. Lederer, H. Rept. 97-110,97th Cong., 1 st Sess. (1981); Comm. on Standards of Official
Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Michael J. Myers, H. Rept. 96-1387, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980); Comm.
on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative John W. Jenrette, Jr., H. Rept. 96-1537, 96th
Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1980) (noting the Special Counsel and DOJ entered into an agreement “covering the receipt of
confidential information in respect to the investigation” into a Member who was a subject of DOJ investigations
known as ABSCAM).
9 Letter from U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Department of Justice, to Chairman Michael Guest and Ranking Member
Susan Wild, Committee on Ethics (Feb. 13, 2024).
5

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending