Daily Archives: July 13, 2018

ملاعب كأس العالم تعزز المكانة العالمية لشركة إس آي إس بيتشيز الإنجليزية

لندن، 14 يوليو / تموز، 2018 /PRNewswire/ —

نهائي موسكو يقام على أول عشب هجين من نوعه

يشهد الأحد إقامة نهائي كأس العالم لكرة القدم، الذي يعد النهائي الأول على الإطلاق الذي يقام على طبقة عشب اصطناعي تمثل تقنية ثورية، وهو الأمر الذي يضخ ملايين الجنيهات إلى إس آي إس بيتشيز “SIS Pitches” الشركة الإنجليزية التي تقف وراء هذه التقنية الرائدة.https://prnewswire2-a.akamaihd.net/p/1893751/sp/189375100/thumbnail/entry_id/1_bah3f587/def_height/400/def_width/400/version/100011/type/1

(صورة: https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/718014/Luzhniki_World_Cup_SISGrass.jpg)
(صورة: https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/718015/SIS_Pitches_Team.jpg)

قامت إس آي إس بتيشيز بتركيب عشبها الهجين باستخدام تقنية ضخ الألياف مع نظام تهوية تحت التربة في ستة ملاعب من بين 12 ملعبًا استضاف كأس العالم، ومنها ملعب لوجنيكي في موسكو الذي يتسع لـ 81,000 مشاهد، والذي سيستضيف الأحد المقبل النهائي المنتظر بين فرنسا وكرواتيا.

وتستخدم أرضية ملعب لوجنيكي عشب إس آي إس جراس “SISGrass“، – وهو عشب طبيعي بنسبة 95% ومعزز بـ 5% من الألياف الاصطناعية – وتقنية إس آي إس للتهوية “SISAir”، وهي نظام فريد للتهوية يستطيع التخلص من الأمطار المتدفقة من السطح خلال خمس ثوان، بينما يحسن من رطوبة الجذور عبر شبكة من الأنابيب تحت التربة.

وبهذه المناسبة، يشير جورج مولان “George Mullan”، المدير التنفيذي لشركة إس آي إس بيتشيز: “مع قرابة مليار شخص من المتوقع أن يشاهدوا المباراة النهائية، هناك ضغط واضح كي تكون أرضية الملعب في أفضل حال، على الرغم من استخدامها لأكثر من 60 ساعة – بما يعادل موسما كاملا من مباريات الدوري الإنجليزي الممتاز – خلال الأسابيع الخمس المنصرمة. وهو الأمر المستحيل تحقيقه على أرضية عشبية تقليدية”.

ويضيف، “تحدث الجميع عن جودة كرة القدم في هذه البطولة وبالتأكيد منحت أرضيتنا لمودريتش ولوكاكو ومبابي وكين مسرحًا مذهلاً للأداء. وكان التقييم الذي وصلنا من جميع المشاركين إيجابيًا بشكل هائل. فقد كانت البطولة بمثابة العرض الأول على مستوى العالم لهذه التقنيات التي اجتمعت في بطولة كأس العالم وأدت بشكل نموذجي”.

أما ملاعب كأس العالم الست التي تستخدم عشب إس آي إس جراس “SISGrass” فهي لوجنيكي، وسبارتاك، وسامارا، وكالينينغراد، وسارانسك، وروستوف.https://prnewswire2-a.akamaihd.net/p/1893751/sp/189375100/thumbnail/entry_id/1_n2rbz92m/def_height/400/def_width/400/version/100011/type/1

وبعد تركيب أكثر من 80 عشبًا هجينًا حول العالم، بما في ذلك ملاعب فرق الدوري الإنجليزي الممتاز مثل تشيلسي، ونيوكاسل يونايتد، وفولام، وبورنموث، وملعب سيلتك بطل الدوري الاسكتلندي، ومجمع سانت جورج بارك الخاص بالاتحاد الإنجليزي لكرة القدم، ومع برشلونة  التي على وشك الانضمام إلى القائمة، تتوقع إس آي إس بيتشيز تحقيق عائدات سنوية ستنمو من 55 مليون جنيه إسترليني إلى 65 مليون جنيه إسترليني في 2019.

ويضيف مولان: “نحن نرى إمكانية تحقيق مكاسب كبيرة من الفرق الرياضية المحترفة في الولايات المتحدة واليابان، بالإضافة إلى قطاع الجامعات الأمريكي ونقوم هذا الصيف وحده بتركيب ثمان أرضيات من عشب إس آي إس جراس في فرنسا”.

ومنذ تأسيسها في 2001، تستعين إس آي إس بيتشيز بأكثر من 340 موظفًا حول العالم، ويقع مقر التصنيع في كمبريا، بإنجلترا. ولمزيد من المعلومات يرجى زيارة الموقع الإلكتروني http://www.sispitches.com.

صدرت بواسطة بيغ بارتنرشيب “BIG Partnership” بالنيابة عن إس آي إس بيتشيز “SIS Pitches“.

المصدر: SIS Pitches

B-BBEE commission makes findings against bee matrix SA (PTY) Ltd for non-compliance in issuing B-BBEE verification certificates

The B-BBEE Commission has found that BEE Matrix SA (Pty) Ltd issued B-BBEE certificates contrary to verification procedures and Codes of Good Practice, and BEE Matrix SA (Pty) Ltd has agreed to implement remedial recommendations made by the B-BBEE Commission, which include a full audit of B-BBEE certificates for 2015-2017 and refund of fees to all entities they improperly issued with B-BBEE certificates, and that BEE Matrix SA (Pty) Ltd, its shareholders Mr Obed de Swardt and Mr Selvin Munusamy, and the technical signatory Simone Mitchell who is no longer with BEE Matrix SA (Pty) Ltd, will not be involved in the business of B-BBEE verification, whether directly or indirectly, for a period of five years.

The B-BBEE Commission initiated the investigation in June 2017 to determine whether the conduct of the BEE Matrix SA (Pty) Ltd and the verification professional in question, Simone Mitchell, is in compliance with the objectives of the B-BBEE Act following letters of advice from the B-BBEE Commission’s Compliance Division alerting BEE Matrix of the B-BBEE certificates issued without following proper verification procedures, which they failed to address satisfactorily.

Although this action emanated from B-BBEE certificates issued to Zuri Quantity Surveyors Incorporated and Ilifa Africa Engineers (Pty) Ltd, the main concern was the application of verification processes and the B-BBEE Commission found that BEE Matrix SA (Pty) Ltd did not have appropriate quality control measures for verification as required. BEE Matrix SA (Pty) Ltd has cooperated with the investigation and apologised for the conduct, and will now approach South African National Accreditation System (SANASrdquo;) to withdraw its accreditation as a verification agency with immediate effect.

The B-BBEE Commission says one of the risks towards achieving real black economic empowerment lies with the verification process, which if not conducted properly, creates a fallacy of empowerment on paper and a haven for fronting practices that have derailed transformation for many years.rdquo;

Our focus on rooting out unacceptable verification practices should help to ensure that we have credible verification agencies in the system. This will give all of us confidence that

B-BBEE certificates entities are trading with are based on properly verified black empowerment credentials, and for government entities to trust the B-BBEE certificates they are presented with by entities from time to time. The B-BBEE certificates in question were declared invalid and withdrawn already,rdquo; the B-BBEE Commission concluded.

Source: The Department of Trade and Industry, South Africa

As China’s Investment Strategies Shift, African Partners Face Risks

When the China-financed Nairobi-Mombasa Railway opened in May 2017, it became Kenya’s largest infrastructure project and a high-profile achievement for President Uhuru Kenyatta ahead of his successful bid for re-election.

The 440-kilometer line cuts travel time in half and promises to make goods drastically cheaper to ship. But by August, widespread administrative issues, including difficulties with ticket purchases online and on the day of travel, had stymied passengers, leaving some to wonder whether the project had been rushed to completion.

As operational issues smoothed out, deeper concerns emerged. The railway cost Kenya nearly $4 billion and may take decades to pay for itself. Environmentalists worry about the impact on a vast nature preserve, and an independent analysis suggests Kenya overpaid, according to research compiled by the China-Africa Research Initiative (CARI) at Johns Hopkins University.

Throughout Africa, China is investing in large-scale infrastructure projects like the Nairobi-Mombasa line. A half-dozen railways have launched in recent years, along with dozens of other infrastructure projects, including bridges, dams, roads and power plants. These projects appear to benefit all sides. However, they often lack proper vetting, and deals unfold with little transparency.

Experts worry that the drive by African governments to industrialize could backfire, and seemingly useful projects will become white elephants � overpriced, underutilized showpieces that do little to drive economic growth or benefit local communities.

Decades of involvement

Chinese involvement in African infrastructure dates to the 1960s, when talks opened with Tanzania and Zambia to build an ambitious post-colonial railway from Dar es Salaam to Kapiri Mposhi, just north of Zambia’s capital, Lusaka. The TAZARA Line, built by China and financed with a more than $400 million, interest-free loan, still operates, despite ongoing maintenance issues and occasional strikes. It was China’s first major African infrastructure project and remains the longest Chinese-built line on the continent.

More recently, China has shifted its engagement from resource-rich countries in West Africa like Angola and Nigeria to emerging economies in East Africa like Kenya and Ethiopia.

New partners have brought new approaches. In a 2008 deal widely criticized by the World Bank and others, China offered billions in infrastructure development to Angola in exchange for a decade of tax-free mining in the country.

As its focus has moved to East Africa, China has downplayed deals for minerals and interest-free loans with more conventional financing and deeper partnerships.

For example, a new railway connecting Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa, to Djibouti was financed in large part by a commercial loan from the Export-Import Bank of China.

Chinese motives, African gains

For China, infrastructure investment in Africa reflects a decades-old strategy of soft power called the Going Out policy. More recent investments in Kenya and Ethiopia represent the latest chapter, extending Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative, a trillion-dollar investment strategy focused on transportation and infrastructure, particularly in Eurasia but also in East Africa.

Beyond strengthening ties in dozens of countries around the globe, China’s international investments create export markets for Chinese labor and goods, provide access to natural resources, standardize Chinese technologies, and enable the world’s second-largest economy to manage $3 trillion in foreign assets. The investments also help China lessen risk through a diverse portfolio of projects that complement its increasingly ambitious political and security objectives.

For African countries intent on economic growth and industrialization, China represents a willing partner that can bring massive projects to completion with speed and ease, said Yunnan Chen, a doctoral student at Johns Hopkins University who recently completed fieldwork in West Africa.

Short term, African countries stand to benefit from the transfer of skills and technology, job creation, and increased capacities to ship goods and move people.

Infrastructure projects bring symbolic benefits as well, highlighting nations’ independence and self-determination. That’s particularly true for rail projects, which often replace colonial-era lines that were used to move resources out of Africa, before falling into disrepair.

Hidden risks

Unlike colonial-era foreign investment, Chinese-backed projects have intrinsic value for Africa, experts agree. But those real benefits can mask unfairness and corruption, which can result in deals that disproportionately benefit China and projects that aren’t driven by real demand, undermining efforts to industrialize.

China, whose $11 trillion economy is more than five times larger than all of Africa, has signed multibillion-dollar contracts without competitive bidding, raising concerns that African countries have overpaid for projects that could take decades to produce a return on investment.

That’s a particular concern with the new line connecting Nairobi and Mombasa. It’s one of the latest fully operational Chinese-built railways in Africa, but it’s not clear that Kenya got a good deal.

In a 2013 analysis of alternatives to the project, the Africa Transport Unit at the World Bank concluded, There is no economic or financial case for standard gauge in the EAC [East Africa Community] area at this time.

Beyond economics, concerns about displacement and environmental damage loom large in discussions about infrastructure projects, especially railways, which often cut through small communities and wildlife preserves. The Nairobi-Mombasa line, for instance, traverses environmentally sensitive regions, said Chen, the Johns Hopkins doctoral student.

An investigation this month by The Standard, one of Kenya’s largest news organizations, concluded Chinese nationals have created a small kingdom in which they run roughshod over Kenyan workers who say they are experiencing neo-colonialism, racism and blatant discrimination.

Kenya Railways has launched its own investigation into claims of mistreatment shortly after The Standard’s reporting.

Despite the potential for negative impacts, planning that could help minimize these effects often falls short.

Uwe Wissenbach and Yuan Wang, researchers with CARI, determined that ideally, social and environmental impact assessments should be carried out before the project begins to evaluate and mitigate the negative impacts on the local population; however, this is often not done or done inadequately.

Without proper planning and oversight, promises of skills training and technology transfer can also fail, further diminishing the value for African partners. And work that could be completed by African laborers is, at times, undertaken by Chinese.

You do see Chinese digging ditches and laying bricks and doing other stuff that’s sort of silly because they can � they should be � hiring Africans to do that, said David Shinn, a former diplomat and a professor of international affairs at George Washington University.

‘Two or three wins for China’

To protect current and future investments, African countries need more oversight and transparency, experts agree.

Chinese firms do have policies to manage social and environmental impacts. But how they get implemented on the ground or how much attention is paid to them does depend a lot on the capacity of the host government and the host institution, Chen said. If you don’t have adequate monitors, if you don’t have a strong enough government on the ground to enforce their own laws and to enforce these policies, then you run into trouble.

In the case of the Nairobi-Mombasa line, Wissenbach and Wang recommend that Kenyan authorities rigorously assess and communicate to the public the long-term economic and financial impacts of the project.

African countries carry the brunt of the risk, Shinn said, but China gets the biggest reward.

Keep in mind that this is a loan from a Chinese bank. A Chinese company by contract is required to build the projects on an enormous amount of that loan money that’s going to go straight into the pocket of a Chinese state-owned company. It’s going to have a percentage of Chinese labor, he said.

And most of the material that goes into the project will be manufactured in China. So, Chinese companies are making a profit on that. There are two or three wins for China, you know, [and] one win for Kenya and Ethiopia, being that they get a railway built that no other country is offering to build for them, Shinn added.

Source: Voice of America

As China’s Investment Strategies Shift, African Partners Face Risks

When the China-financed Nairobi-Mombasa Railway opened in May 2017, it became Kenya’s largest infrastructure project and a high-profile achievement for President Uhuru Kenyatta ahead of his successful bid for re-election.

The 440-kilometer line cuts travel time in half and promises to make goods drastically cheaper to ship. But by August, widespread administrative issues, including difficulties with ticket purchases online and on the day of travel, had stymied passengers, leaving some to wonder whether the project had been rushed to completion.

As operational issues smoothed out, deeper concerns emerged. The railway cost Kenya nearly $4 billion and may take decades to pay for itself. Environmentalists worry about the impact on a vast nature preserve, and an independent analysis suggests Kenya overpaid, according to research compiled by the China-Africa Research Initiative (CARI) at Johns Hopkins University.

Throughout Africa, China is investing in large-scale infrastructure projects like the Nairobi-Mombasa line. A half-dozen railways have launched in recent years, along with dozens of other infrastructure projects, including bridges, dams, roads and power plants. These projects appear to benefit all sides. However, they often lack proper vetting, and deals unfold with little transparency.

Experts worry that the drive by African governments to industrialize could backfire, and seemingly useful projects will become white elephants � overpriced, underutilized showpieces that do little to drive economic growth or benefit local communities.

Decades of involvement

Chinese involvement in African infrastructure dates to the 1960s, when talks opened with Tanzania and Zambia to build an ambitious post-colonial railway from Dar es Salaam to Kapiri Mposhi, just north of Zambia’s capital, Lusaka. The TAZARA Line, built by China and financed with a more than $400 million, interest-free loan, still operates, despite ongoing maintenance issues and occasional strikes. It was China’s first major African infrastructure project and remains the longest Chinese-built line on the continent.

More recently, China has shifted its engagement from resource-rich countries in West Africa like Angola and Nigeria to emerging economies in East Africa like Kenya and Ethiopia.

New partners have brought new approaches. In a 2008 deal widely criticized by the World Bank and others, China offered billions in infrastructure development to Angola in exchange for a decade of tax-free mining in the country.

As its focus has moved to East Africa, China has downplayed deals for minerals and interest-free loans with more conventional financing and deeper partnerships.

For example, a new railway connecting Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa, to Djibouti was financed in large part by a commercial loan from the Export-Import Bank of China.

Chinese motives, African gains

For China, infrastructure investment in Africa reflects a decades-old strategy of soft power called the Going Out policy. More recent investments in Kenya and Ethiopia represent the latest chapter, extending Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative, a trillion-dollar investment strategy focused on transportation and infrastructure, particularly in Eurasia but also in East Africa.

Beyond strengthening ties in dozens of countries around the globe, China’s international investments create export markets for Chinese labor and goods, provide access to natural resources, standardize Chinese technologies, and enable the world’s second-largest economy to manage $3 trillion in foreign assets. The investments also help China lessen risk through a diverse portfolio of projects that complement its increasingly ambitious political and security objectives.

For African countries intent on economic growth and industrialization, China represents a willing partner that can bring massive projects to completion with speed and ease, said Yunnan Chen, a doctoral student at Johns Hopkins University who recently completed fieldwork in West Africa.

Short term, African countries stand to benefit from the transfer of skills and technology, job creation, and increased capacities to ship goods and move people.

Infrastructure projects bring symbolic benefits as well, highlighting nations’ independence and self-determination. That’s particularly true for rail projects, which often replace colonial-era lines that were used to move resources out of Africa, before falling into disrepair.

Hidden risks

Unlike colonial-era foreign investment, Chinese-backed projects have intrinsic value for Africa, experts agree. But those real benefits can mask unfairness and corruption, which can result in deals that disproportionately benefit China and projects that aren’t driven by real demand, undermining efforts to industrialize.

China, whose $11 trillion economy is more than five times larger than all of Africa, has signed multibillion-dollar contracts without competitive bidding, raising concerns that African countries have overpaid for projects that could take decades to produce a return on investment.

That’s a particular concern with the new line connecting Nairobi and Mombasa. It’s one of the latest fully operational Chinese-built railways in Africa, but it’s not clear that Kenya got a good deal.

In a 2013 analysis of alternatives to the project, the Africa Transport Unit at the World Bank concluded, There is no economic or financial case for standard gauge in the EAC [East Africa Community] area at this time.

Beyond economics, concerns about displacement and environmental damage loom large in discussions about infrastructure projects, especially railways, which often cut through small communities and wildlife preserves. The Nairobi-Mombasa line, for instance, traverses environmentally sensitive regions, said Chen, the Johns Hopkins doctoral student.

An investigation this month by The Standard, one of Kenya’s largest news organizations, concluded Chinese nationals have created a small kingdom in which they run roughshod over Kenyan workers who say they are experiencing neo-colonialism, racism and blatant discrimination.

Kenya Railways has launched its own investigation into claims of mistreatment shortly after The Standard’s reporting.

Despite the potential for negative impacts, planning that could help minimize these effects often falls short.

Uwe Wissenbach and Yuan Wang, researchers with CARI, determined that ideally, social and environmental impact assessments should be carried out before the project begins to evaluate and mitigate the negative impacts on the local population; however, this is often not done or done inadequately.

Without proper planning and oversight, promises of skills training and technology transfer can also fail, further diminishing the value for African partners. And work that could be completed by African laborers is, at times, undertaken by Chinese.

You do see Chinese digging ditches and laying bricks and doing other stuff that’s sort of silly because they can � they should be � hiring Africans to do that, said David Shinn, a former diplomat and a professor of international affairs at George Washington University.

‘Two or three wins for China’

To protect current and future investments, African countries need more oversight and transparency, experts agree.

Chinese firms do have policies to manage social and environmental impacts. But how they get implemented on the ground or how much attention is paid to them does depend a lot on the capacity of the host government and the host institution, Chen said. If you don’t have adequate monitors, if you don’t have a strong enough government on the ground to enforce their own laws and to enforce these policies, then you run into trouble.

In the case of the Nairobi-Mombasa line, Wissenbach and Wang recommend that Kenyan authorities rigorously assess and communicate to the public the long-term economic and financial impacts of the project.

African countries carry the brunt of the risk, Shinn said, but China gets the biggest reward.

Keep in mind that this is a loan from a Chinese bank. A Chinese company by contract is required to build the projects on an enormous amount of that loan money that’s going to go straight into the pocket of a Chinese state-owned company. It’s going to have a percentage of Chinese labor, he said.

And most of the material that goes into the project will be manufactured in China. So, Chinese companies are making a profit on that. There are two or three wins for China, you know, [and] one win for Kenya and Ethiopia, being that they get a railway built that no other country is offering to build for them, Shinn added.

Source: Voice of America