Report of the 

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

ANNUAL POLICY REPORT 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 

Submitted Pursuant to 

Section 240A of the 

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 

As Amended

July 2012
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 2 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 3

I. OPIC IN FISCAL YEAR 2011 ..................................................................................... 4

Fiscal Year Overview ................................................................................................. 4

U.S. Economic Effects ............................................................................................... 5

OPIC Priorities in Fiscal Year 2011 ............................................................................ 7

II. HOST COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ....................................................... 11

Host Country Development Effects .......................................................................... 11

III: ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, SAFETY & SOCIAL IMPACTS .............................. 13

Fiscal Year 2011 New Initiatives .............................................................................. 13

Project Screening and Assessment ......................................................................... 13

Mitigating Climate Change ....................................................................................... 15

Fiscal Year 2011 Reporting ..................................................................................... 17

IV. LABOR AND HUMAN RIGHTS .............................................................................. 18

Project Screening and Assessment ......................................................................... 18

Human Rights .......................................................................................................... 19

V. MONITORING OF ACTIVE PROJECTS ................................................................. 20

Overview .................................................................................................................. 20

Compliance with OPIC Conditions and Covenants .................................................. 20

Site Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 22

Self-Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 25

VI. EXHIBITS ............................................................................................................... 29

Exhibit 1: U.S. Employment and Associated Effects of OPIC-Supported Projects ... 30

Exhibit 2: Destination of Sales to Third Party Markets of OPIC–Supported Projects 

Fiscal Year 2011 (Projections) 1/............................................................................... 31

Exhibit 3: U.S. Employment Effects and Host Country Location of OPIC-Supported 

Projects .................................................................................................................... 33

Exhibit 4: Methodology for Calculating U.S. Employment Effects ........................... 37

Exhibit 5: OPIC’s Development Matrix Explained ................................................... 38

Exhibit 6: OPIC’s Financial Services Development Matrix Explained ..................... 39

Exhibit 7: OPIC’s Greenhouse Gas Policy and Current Inventory ........................... 40

Exhibit 8: OPIC Site Monitoring Methodology ......................................................... 44
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 3 

OPIC ANNUAL POLICY REPORT – Fiscal Year 2011 

Executive Summary 

As the U.S. Government’s development finance institution, in Fiscal Year 2011 the Overseas 

Private Investment Corporation outperformed its core mission to mobilize and facilitate the 

participation of U.S. private capital and skills in the economic and social development of less 

developed countries and transitioning economies by: 

- Committing over 60% of new FY11 project dollars in the poorest countries; 

- Mobilizing $4.4 billion in additional private capital; and 

- Posting a record year in renewable resources investment. 

In addition, OPIC continued its strong support for U.S. small businesses, with 78% of OPIC 

projects done in partnership with US small businesses. And, OPIC generated net income of 

$269 million, helping to reduce the federal budget deficit for the 34 h consecutive year. 

OPIC’s activities in Fiscal Year 2011 

OPIC catalyzed U.S. investment and jobs, supporting 92 new projects in 40 countries and 

areas over 8 regions with a total of $6.3 billion in investment. These projects are expected 

to generate more than $1 billion in U.S. exports and support over 1,370 U.S. jobs. 

OPIC supported U.S. small business. In FY11, 72 of the 92 new projects that OPIC 

supported were in partnership with U.S. small businesses. In addition, these 92 projects are 

expected to procure $340 million in goods and services from U.S. small businesses located 

in 20 states and the District of Columbia. 

 In FY11, OPIC strengthened its efforts to support: i) projects in low-income countries; ii) 

investment in renewable energy; and iii) investments in the Middle East and North Africa. 

i. OPIC supported growth in developing countries. Over 60% of FY11 project 

commitments are in low-income countries. Seventy-six percent of FY11 OPICsupported projects were located in low- and middle-income developing countries. In 

addition, the new FY11 projects are expected to generate more than $3.7 billion in local 

spending in the more than 40 countries reached, which will stimulate job creation and 

spur further economic activity and employment. 

ii. Renewable energy was a critical priority sector: FY11 was OPIC’s most successful 

year in the renewable resources sector, by every measure and by a considerable 

margin, generating a ten-fold increase over FY10 in megawatts generated from 

renewable energy sources in OPIC-supported projects, from 71MW to 728MW; and 

tripling the amount of CO2 emissions avoided, from 336,000 tons to 931,000 tons.

iii. OPIC offered strategic support in the MENA Region in support of U.S. foreign 

policy priorities: OPIC continues to collaborate closely with other U.S. agencies in 

promoting sustainable economic development in key regions of the world, including the 

Middle East and North Africa. OPIC has committed to provide up to $3 billion to catalyze 

investment in the region over the next three years, including up to $1 billion in 

investment specifically for Egypt. OPIC’s growing portfolio in MENA currently totals 

nearly $2.6 billion across 50 projects, including but not limited to energy, infrastructure, 

and housing. 




OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 8 

Tameer Microfinance Bank

Pakistan 

OPIC provided Tameer

Microfinance Bank (TMFB) a 

$21.5 million commitment for a 

guaranty facility which will 

enable TMFB to obtain a 

Rupee loan from Citibank 

Pakistan. TMFB will use the 

loan proceeds to expand its 

microfinance loan portfolio. 

The project leverages OPIC’s 

continuing partnership with 

Citibank to make microfinance 

loans more readily available to 

low-income individuals and 

small businesses. TMFB 

offers a suite of financial 

products such as credit, 

savings, bill payments and 

remittances to low-income 

individuals and small 

businesses in underserved 

areas of Pakistan. TMFB is 

also a market leader in 

providing mobile banking to 

customers through its 

easypaisa brand, which has 

significantly enhanced financial 

access in Pakistan.

Les Moulins d’Haiti

Haiti 

OPIC is providing $22 million of political risk insurance to the U.S. 

partners in a joint venture in Haiti to help reconstruct a flour mill 

and animal feed facility destroyed by the devastating 2010 

earthquake in that country. Les Moulins d’Haiti, which was rebuilt 

on its original location with modern equipment and designed for 

additional seismic loading, reopened in December 2011. With a 

new corn mill and two 600 metric tons-per-day wheat milling 

units, the project will increase the country’s food production 

capacity, promote food security, and create a substantial number 

of local jobs with training and benefits. This and other OPIC 

products supporting agriculture and food security help advance 

the U.S. Government’s Feed the Future Initiative.

Ghana Ministry of Health Belstar

Ghana 

OPIC has provided $240.3 million in political risk insurance to 

Florida-based Belstar Development to cover its investment in the 

Ghana National Medical Equipment Modernization Project, a 

partnership with the government of Ghana to supply modern 

medical equipment and technical training to up to 100 hospitals 

throughout the country. The project will result in the transfer of 

modern healthcare technology not readily accessible in Ghana to 

various hospitals throughout the country which serve both low 

and middle income segments of the population. The project will 

have a significant impact on Ghana’s ability to meet its growing 

need for modern health care infrastructure.

Applied Solar Technologies

India 

Building on other solar power projects OPIC has supported in India, one of many regions in the world 

where sunlight is a plentiful natural resource, $150 million in new OPIC financing will expand the use of 

solar energy to power remotely located telecommunication towers, replacing the use of diesel generators 

and significantly reducing CO2 emissions. Under sponsorship of a private U.S. investor and Bessemer 

Venture Partners Trust, Applied Solar Technologies (AST) will use the OPIC loan to provide tower 

operators with advanced solar-hybrid energy systems to help the country’s fast-growing telecom sector 

provide service to remote regions that have little or no access to electricity. Two of AST’s largest 

customers have already won prestigious awards for their efforts to reduce their carbon footprints and 

focus on more sustainable operations. It is worth mentioning that the International Finance Corporation 

and Capricorn Capital are investors in AST.






OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 15 

In FY11, OPIC conducted pre-approval site visits to seven projects in eight countries including: 

 A hydroelectric project in Georgia 

 A geothermal project in Kenya 

 A fertilizer project in Nigeria 

 A thermal power plant project in Jamaica 

 A wind power project in Uruguay 

 A wind power project in Jordan 

 A solar power facility project in Thailand and India 

OPIC publishes information on all Category A projects for public comment

In FY11, consistent with OPIC policy, two potential Category A projects under consideration for OPIC 

support were disclosed on OPIC’s website for 60 days prior to action by the OPIC Board and announced 

via email to OPIC stakeholders, giving interested persons and organizations the opportunity to review the 

ESIAs, and to comment on the projects’ potential environmental and social impacts. Full text versions of 

ESIAs were available for download directly from the OPIC website. As mentioned above, three Category 

A projects received OPIC commitments in FY11. Two of the three were reviewed, disclosed and 

committed to in FY11; the third was reviewed and disclosed in FY10 and then committed to in FY11. 

No public comments were received in response to the ESIA’s posted for the two projects in FY11. 

Transactions rejected on environmental and/or social grounds

OPIC did not reject any applications for finance or insurance in FY11 on the basis of categorical 

prohibitions.13 

Mitigating Climate Change 

On June 14, 2007, OPIC announced its Greenhouse Gas/Clean Energy Initiative to systematically 

evaluate, monitor, and report on OPIC’s investment decisions and to demonstrate to stakeholders OPIC’s 

progress in reducing the climate change impacts of its project portfolio. 

OPIC is reducing direct GHG emissions. Since 2008, emissions have been cut by 34%.

As part of OPIC’s Greenhouse Gas/Clean Energy Initiative, OPIC committed to: (a) reduce the direct 

GHG emissions associated with projects in OPIC’s active portfolio as of June 30, 2008 (i) by 30% over a 

ten-year period; and (ii) by 50% over a 15-year period [as required under Section 7079(b) of Public Law 

111-117 (FY10 Omnibus)]; and (b) increase investment support to renewable and energy efficiency 

projects. 

 

For the purpose of tracking progress in achieving its GHG reduction goals, in 2008 OPIC procured the 

services of an outside environmental auditor, Pace Global Energy Services LLC (Pace), to develop a 

baseline GHG inventory of existing OPIC supported projects. The organizational boundary for the 

inventory was defined as 100% of on-site emissions from the calendar year 2007 for all projects within 

OPIC’s active portfolio as of June 30, 2008 (baseline emissions). This organizational boundary is 

consistent with the voluntary Scope 314 emissions reporting methodology that OPIC adopted in 2004. 

 

13 Certain types of projects have potential adverse environmental or social impacts that preclude the project from receiving OPIC 

support. These categorically prohibited projects are listed in Appendix B of the OPIC Environmental and Social Policy Statement. 

14 Under the World Resource Institute’s Greenhouse Gas Protocol, corporations choose to report emissions based on either an 

equity share or a financial or operational control basis. In other words, a corporation chooses to report either a share of a facility’s 

emissions consistent with its equity ownership or it chooses to report all emissions from a facility (regardless of share ownership) 

based on its having operational or financial control of the facility. The corporation then assesses two types of emissions (Scope 1 
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 16

Accounting for 100% of project emissions is more conservative than the equity or operational control 

approach that assumes partial ownership of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions. OPIC’s accounting 

measures direct emissions because these emissions are verifiable and directly attributable to the project 

activity that is benefiting from OPIC’s support. 

OPIC estimates greenhouse gas emissions from all projects that have significant direct emissions. 

Whereas previously OPIC reported emissions for projects emitting greater than 100,000 short tons 

carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) per year, as part of OPIC’s revised Environmental and Social Policy 

Statement, OPIC now reports estimates for projects emitting greater than 25,000 tons CO2eq per year. 

The 25,000 tons CO2eq threshold was selected to match the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

threshold criteria for significant GHG emissions.15 

Baseline emissions, which were calculated for calendar year 2007 for projects active as of June 30, 2008, 

were estimated to be 51,874,868 tons of CO2eq.

16 Based on the independent audit findings, the 

estimated calendar year 2010 inventory of GHG emissions from all projects with significant emissions that 

were active as of September 30, 201117 was 32,981,461 tons of CO2eq. The total is based on Pace’s 

calculations unless the investor-provided data indicative of actual operating conditions. Four percent was 

then added to the total to account for GHG emissions from active projects in OPIC’s portfolio that have 

less than 25,000 tons of CO2eq; thus, the total inventory of GHG emissions for calendar year 2010 for 

projects active as of September 30, 2011 was 34,543,568 tons of CO2eq. This represents a 34% reduction 

in portfolio emissions from the baseline. 

 

and Scope 2) and may assess a third type of emissions (Scope 3). Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions; Scope 2 emissions are 

indirect emissions associated with purchased electricity; and Scope 3 emissions are other indirect emissions, which can involve any 

indirect emissions associated with the lifecycle of products or services associated with the company’s activities (other than those 

associated with purchased electricity, i.e., Scope 2 emissions). Reporting of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions is mandatory while 

reporting of Scope 3 emissions is voluntary. 

15 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s threshold criterion for significant GHG emissions is 25,000 metric tons. To maintain 

consistency with units, OPIC uses 25,000 short tons, which is conservative since 25,000 metric tons converted to short tons equals 

approximately 27,500 short tons. 

16 OPIC revised baseline emissions based on new information reported by one of OPIC’s project sponsors which had previously 

reported emissions based on their equity share (50%) rather than accounting for emissions for the entire project. Because OPIC 

accounts for 100% of emissions from projects regardless of equity share, the 2007 and 2008 estimates were revised to reflect 100% 

of emissions. 

17 OPIC aligns GHG accounting with the fiscal year by estimating emissions for those projects active as of September 30, 2011. 


OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 19

 Identification of potential risks to workers, including the project’s potential to infringe upon 

internationally recognized worker rights; 

 Comparison of the project’s expected performance in relation to internationally-accepted 

standards and practices; 

 Evaluation or design of project requirements necessary to enable OPIC support; 

 Evaluation or design of associated management and monitoring measures. 

All 92 of the FY11 OPIC projects were subjected to a full review of worker rights, and OPIC support was 

conditioned upon contractual adherence to OPIC’s worker rights requirements. Supplemental contract 

conditions addressing one or more of these rights were included in an overwhelming majority of the 

project contracts and agreements. 

OPIC tracks countries’ eligibility as part of its worker rights statutory obligations

OPIC’s Environmental and Social Policy Statement clearly outlines OPIC’s policies on country eligibility 

based on labor-related statutory obligations. For consistency of worker rights determinations across the 

U.S. Government, OPIC accepts the determinations made by the President for the purpose of the 

Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program, a trade benefits program overseen by the Office of 

the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 

OPIC tracks USTR’s petition-and-review process for country eligibility on worker rights grounds, including 

their Trade Policy Staff Committee’s (TPSC) determinations as a result of formally-accepted reviews. For 

countries that are ineligible for the GSP program on grounds other than worker rights, OPIC utilizes a 

similar petition-and-review process for country eligibility on worker rights grounds. During FY11, no 

ineligible countries regained their GSP benefits on worker rights grounds, and hence their eligibility for 

OPIC programs. Similarly, no countries became ineligible for GSP benefits or OPIC programs on worker 

rights grounds. 

For its FY11 GSP Annual Review, USTR continues to formally review the GSP eligibility of the following 

countries on worker rights grounds: Bangladesh, Niger, Uzbekistan, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka, and 

added Georgia. OPIC will adjust country eligibility status on the basis of the TPSC’s final determination in 

these countries. 

Human Rights 

Respect for human rights is essential to the success of OPIC-supported projects, and OPIC recognizes 

the importance of human rights in its programs and project evaluation process. The OPIC project review 

process is designed to ensure that OPIC-supported projects meet their statutory requirements, as 

required by the Foreign Assistance Act. For all potential projects, OPIC works in close consultation with 

the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL), prior to making a 

final commitment. 

In FY11, OPIC collaborated with DRL on the human rights consultation process by utilizing a mutuallyagreed upon monthly and quarterly system of updates to ensure consistency between OPIC and DRL 

regarding relevant human rights matters in OPIC eligible countries. Every project considered for OPIC 

financing, insurance, or for investment by an OPIC-supported investment fund in FY11 was subjected to 

the human rights consultative review process. OPIC did not decline support for any projects in FY11 as a 

result of the consultative human rights review process. 
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 20

V. MONITORING OF ACTIVE PROJECTS 

This section provides an overview of OPIC’s policy monitoring program and outlines Fiscal Year 2011’s 

monitoring activities. The section is divided in three parts: compliance, site monitoring, and selfmonitoring. 

Overview

OPIC considers project monitoring a vital part of the project oversight process, and employs two types of 

project monitoring: self-monitoring and site monitoring. 

All OPIC-supported projects are required to complete OPIC’s Self-Monitoring Questionnaire (SMQ) 

annually. The SMQ gathers annual operational information19 on active projects, including such critical 

data points as the number of employees and U.S. and local procurement. OPIC also uses the SMQ to 

gather data that enable the agency to track the development performance of the investments over time. 

A new, more user-friendly web-based questionnaire will be launched in 2012. The new questionnaire will 

be easier for investors to complete and will therefore provide OPIC with higher-quality data. 

Site monitoring helps ensure the integrity of information gathered through self-monitoring. Site monitoring 

involves field visits to OPIC-supported projects to ensure compliance with relevant covenants in OPIC 

agreements. The projects that are site-monitored are a combination of: 1) projects randomly selected 

from OPIC’s active portfolio; and 2) projects designated as sensitive for at least one of OPIC’s statutory 

disciplines (U.S. economic impact, host country developmental impact, labor, environment, and social 

impact). 

The value of site monitoring extends beyond ensuring compliance and understanding why a project 

succeeded or struggled. The process of gathering, analyzing, and verifying information about projects 

helps OPIC continually improve its investment strategy, which means better outcomes for U.S. investors 

and host country development. 

In late 2007, OPIC initiated an integrated site monitoring approach, using one policy monitoring visit to 

comprehensively assess projects’ compliance with each of the statutory disciplines as well as its actual 

developmental impacts. Fiscal Year 2011 was the fourth complete fiscal year of integrated site 

monitoring, and it has been a more efficient and effective use of staff and budget resources. 

In FY11, approximately 363 projects were self-monitored and 38 projects were site-monitored. 

Compliance with OPIC Conditions and Covenants 

Each discipline within the Office of Investment Policy monitors projects to ensure compliance with OPIC 

conditions and covenants. The results of the site monitoring this year are: 

U.S. economic effects and host country development: U.S. economic and host country 

developmental impact site monitoring found that no projects were out of compliance with OPIC 

conditions and covenants related to U.S. economic effects. 

Environment and social impact: In FY11 environmental and social impact monitoring focused 

on those projects with the potential for greatest environmental and social risk. In FY11, 80% of 

the site visits involved Category A and B projects. During site monitoring, approximately 70% of

 

19 The SMQ monitors data used to support OPIC’s investment policy requirements. The financial performance of loans and 

guaranties is monitored separately within OPIC. 
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 21

projects were found to be fully in compliance with all OPIC covenants and conditions pertaining to 

environmental and social considerations. 

 Of the 30% of site-monitored projects that were not fully in compliance with OPIC covenants 

related to environmental and social impact issues: 

o 5% of the projects were facing financial difficulty at the time of the visit and are currently 

in default; 

o 10% of the projects had deficiencies with respect to wastewater treatment and 

monitoring. In these cases OPIC’s environmental and social impact group informed the 

project investor of the deficiency and required implementation of corrective actions; and

o 15% of the projects are complex Category A projects that OPIC continuously monitors 

and works with to ensure implementation of their environmental and social management 

plans in order to bring them into full compliance. 

Labor and human rights: In FY11, the site-monitored projects generally demonstrated a strong 

commitment to the OPIC worker rights requirements, and often extended their commitments to 

support workers and their local communities above and beyond OPIC requirements. One project 

that was audited by a third party found labor-related deficiencies that were readily rectifiable, 

including the need for improvements to time management and wage-tracking systems to avoid 

unwarranted overtime work and to ensure the timely and appropriate payment of wages. The 

project sponsor demonstrated strong cooperation and support for remediation efforts. The thirdparty auditor oversaw the successful remediation process and continues to monitor the project 

through its construction phase. 

Self-reporting of Policy Compliance: OPIC also requires self-reporting by clients (see SelfMonitoring section below). In FY11, 98% of OPIC clients reported that they were in compliance 

with conditions in the OPIC contract or consent related to environment, health and workers’ 

safety. Two projects reported compliance problems. In one case, the project was also sitemonitored, and corrective actions were identified, and a clear timeline for implementation was 

agreed upon with the client. In the other case, one division of a company reported it was not in 

compliance with local occupational health and safety legislation and a follow-up plan was put also 

in place. Five projects indicated they were not in compliance with an environmental, health, and 

safety reporting requirement. OPIC followed up and found they were in fact in compliance 

because, as environmental category C projects, they did not have any specific reporting 

requirements in this area. 

The following sections provide additional detail on the results of OPIC’s FY11 monitoring. 
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 22

Site Monitoring 

In FY11, OPIC site-monitored 38 projects in various sectors around the globe. The figures in this section 

provide a breakdown of the sectors, products, and locations of the projects site-monitored in FY11. 

Reflecting the shift in the OPIC portfolio 

over the past few years toward 

investments in financial services and 

through financial intermediaries, OPIC 

continued to monitor a significant 

number of projects in this broad sector. 

For financial services projects, OPIC 

analyzed both the impact of OPIC 

support on the financial intermediary 

and the impact of the OPIC-supported 

financial intermediary activities on 

downstream borrowers. 

Since most financial services projects are 

supported via OPIC investment 

guarantees, the share of financial 

services projects in the portfolio is also 

reflected in the breakdown, by OPIC 

product, of projects monitored in FY11. 

Geographically, the majority of projects 

monitored in FY11 were in Latin America 

and Eastern & Southern Europe. This 

distribution reflects the regional 

distribution of the more mature projects in 

OPIC’s portfolio. 

Asia

8%

Eastern & 

Southern Europe

34%

Latin America

45%

Middle East & 

North Africa

5%

Sub-Saharan 

Africa

8%

Figure 9

FY11 Site Monitoring by Region

Agribusiness

5%

Communica-tion

8%

Construction

5%

Energy

3%

Financial 

Services

55%

Manufacturing

3%

Services

21%

Figure 7

FY11 Site Monitoring by Sector

Direct Loan 

(Finance)

16% Both Finance & 

Insurance

5%

Insurance

13%

Investment 

Guarantee 

(Funds)

18%

Investment 

Guarantee 

(Finance)

47%

Figure 8

FY11 Site Monitoring by OPIC Product
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 23

Fiscal Year 2011 Monitoring Observations 

The following is a sampling of findings from the 

Office of Investment Policy’s monitoring visits. 

These examples show some of the ways in which 

OPIC-supported projects have had substantial 

developmental impact. For more detail on 

OPIC’s site monitoring methodology, see Exhibit 

8. 

Sub-Saharan Africa

Emerging Capital Partners: Cellcom 

Telecommunications Inc. (Liberia)

Cellcom covers two countries in West Africa: 

Liberia and Guinea, offering mobile 

telecommunications services including 

individual subscriber identity module (SIM) 

cards for local calls and retrieval of 

messages for residential, business, and 

government users. 

The project has had significant 

developmental impact in both Liberia and 

Guinea. First, Cellcom has generated almost 

800 new local jobs, which is very important 

for both markets: Liberia, as it recovers from 

two civil wars that displaced hundreds of 

thousands of people and brought a steep 

decline in living standards; and Guinea where 

private sector development has struggled 

due to recurring socio-political instability.

Second, the project has increased mobile 

phone technology coverage to previously 

unconnected rural areas by increasing the 

number of base stations throughout the 

country. Third, improvements in the 

telecommunications infrastructure 

significantly contributed to lower prices for 

telecom services. For instance, the price of a 

SIM card was $65 before the launching of 

Cellcom and dropped to $1 after it was 

introduced to the market. Likewise, the cost 

of an international call dropped from $1 per 

minute to $0.25 per minute.

Latin America

Blue Orchard- Microfinance Security I, LLC 

(Banco FIE Investment, SA)-Global (Bolivia)

OPIC-supported microfinance fund Blue Orchard 

Microfinance Securities provided Banco FIE - a 

leading microfinance institution in Bolivia - with a 

loan in 2004 and a follow-on loan in 2005. 

Established in 1985 by five women, Banco FIE 

began operations as a non-governmental 

organization that provided capital and services to 

unemployed and low-income individuals throughout 

Bolivia. Banco FIE became a regulated bank in 

May 2010.

This project is generating a positive developmental 

impact in Bolivia, especially among low-income 

urban and semi-urban populations, where 

approximately 74 percent of Banco FIE’s client 

base reside. As of December 2011, Banco FIE had

2,370 employees attending over 175 thousand 

borrowers and 565 thousand depositors.

Banco FIE has taken measureable steps to be a 

regional and global leader in MFI transparency. In 

2009, Banco FIE received a Certificate of 

Transparency from the Microfinance Information 

Exchange and a five diamond award from 

Asociacion de Entidades Financieras 

Especializadas en Micro Finanzas (ASOFIN), a 

microfinance institutions' association which 

represents the regulated microfinance sector in 

Bolivia, for improving transparency, quality, and 

reliability of microfinance information. In October 

2010, the IDB acknowledged Banco FIE as having 

the best social performance practices of any MFI in 

Bolivia and the greater Latin America and 

Caribbean region, in recognition of its business 

outreach, human resources policy, client services, 

and community contributions. In October 2011, the 

IDB acknowledged Banco FIE again, this time 

naming it the best microfinance institution in Latin 

America.
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 24

Kelley Grains Corporation – Moldova 

In 2006, OPIC provided an investment guaranty to 

finance the construction of the first grain loading port 

terminal in Moldova and the construction of an oil seed 

crushing facility, Kelley Grains. 

 

The developmental impact of the Trans Cargo Terminal 

has been enormous, as it provides Moldovan farmers 

direct access to international commercial seaways. 

Prior to the construction of the grain terminal, farmers 

had to transport their goods through Ukraine, which 

was extremely costly. The new terminal building, able 

to store up to 50,000 tons of cereals and facilitate the 

loading of ships with the capacity of 300 mt per hour, 

has enabled the Trans Cargo Terminal to be one of the 

largest and most modern grain export facilities on the 

Danube River. The annual turnover of the terminal is 

approximately 250,000 tons of grain. 

 

The Trans Oil Refinery oil crushing facility located in 

Ceadîr-Lunga is a state-of-the-art facility that processes 

sunflower seeds, soybeans, and rapeseed oil for export 

to neighboring countries. The daily capacity of the plant 

is 450 tons. The project has helped the Moldovan 

agriculture sector diversify into value-added processing, 

which generates foreign exchange earnings for the 

country and creates opportunities for growth for local 

farmers. The project has provided over 70 jobs – 

critical employment in a poor, rural area of Moldova. 

 

The facility operates in accordance with internationally 

recognized best practices and complies with the World 

Bank Group’s applicable Environmental, Health, and 

Safety Guidelines. 

ACD Research – Samara Region – Russia 

The Samara Oncology Center is a highly successful 

project in the Russian healthcare sector. The investor, 

ACD Research, Inc., a New York-based healthcare 

solutions provider, purchased OPIC political risk 

insurance coverage for its sale of medical equipment, 

installation and technical training services, and 

provision of long-term local-currency supplier financing 

to equip a state-of-the-art oncology center in Samara, a 

formerly closed city on the Volga river in the 

southeastern part of European Russia. The insurance 

covered breach of contract (non-payment of an arbitral 

award) and inconvertibility of currency due as contract 

payments under the contract between ACD Research, 

Inc. and the Samara Region. The project brought 

cutting edge medical equipment to the Middle Volga 

region, making it a cancer treatment model for the country, with patients coming from all over Russia for 

treatment. Other Russian regions have expressed interest in building similar centers to help address 

medical service shortages throughout the country. 

Eastern and Southern Europe 

Citibank Housing, TBC Bank (Georgia)

OPIC monitored TBC Bank (TBC) in July 

2011. The project, committed in late 2008, 

was a critical part of OPIC’s response to a 

severe shortage of credit to the real sector 

as a result of Georgia’s conflict with Russia. 

Georgia’s banking system was under 

severe strain, and the economy suffered 

almost four percent real GDP contraction in 

2009. Under the OPIC-supported Citi 

Housing framework agreement, Citi’s loan 

to TBC enabled TBC to underwrite medium 

and long-term mortgages to urban 

Georgians: roughly two-thirds of TBC’s 

mortgage portfolio has a maturity of six to 

ten years; over 20 percent of TBC’s 

mortgage loans have maturity periods of 11 

to 20 years. In addition to the support for 

mortgage lending, TBC used OPIC’s 

funding to bolster support for small and

medium enterprise (SME) and consumer 

lending activities as well. TBC’s SME 

support is spread across a variety of 

industry sectors from consumer services 

and products to real estate, food and drink, 

and construction. TBC is also an active 

member of its community, providing care to 

internally displaced persons, disabled 

children, and people who suffer from 

multiple sclerosis, by financing the 

construction of schools, supporting 

scholarship programs, and providing free 

meals for the elderly.

During the monitoring visit, TBC’s CEO 

referred to OPIC and Citi’s support during 

the financial crisis as critical. TBC 

highlighted in particular the efficient 

decision making that made the financing 

available quickly and provided a vital signal 

of comfort to investors.

In 2011, TBC Bank was named “Best Bank 

in Georgia” by Euromoney for their 

“outstanding operation, quality service, 

innovation, and momentum.” That same 

year, The Banker magazine named TBC 

Bank “Bank of the Year” for its innovation 

and economic efficiency. 
*

*

 * Information has been Redacted in accordance with the two principled exceptions of the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act 

(FATAA) of 2016; including the health and security of implementing partners, as well as national interest of the United States.
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 26

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Lower Local Prices

New Technology

New Products

Marketing Techniques

Management Practices

Technology & Knowledge Transfer

OPIC-supported projects also help to increase the overall skill level of the workforce through training and 

development. In FY11, SMQ respondents reported that approximately 4,790 local employees received 

formal training, and around 44% of those employees received training abroad. 

Ninety-one percent of OPIC-projects offered company and employee benefits

Company and employee benefits are another 

indication of a maturing employment market. In 

FY11, 91% of the SMQ respondents offered 

employees various company benefits such as 

transportation or meal subsidies, pension plans, or 

medical coverage. 

About 90% of OPIC-supported projects had 

special policies and benefits in place specifically to 

benefit women in the workplace—such as child 

care, maternity leave, and policies against sexual 

harassment. And approximately 80% of SMQ 

respondents had an equal employment policy. 

Technology and Knowledge Transfer 

Forty-three percent of OPIC-supported projects introduced innovative 

management techniques

Technology and knowledge transfer includes the dissemination of innovative management practices, 

marketing and distribution expertise, and the adoption of new production technologies. These transfers 

frequently have a substantial effect on the host country by improving worker productivity, and they can 

lead to the development and introduction of new products and services. Moreover, additional impacts 

may be created through adoption of new technologies and ideas by other firms in the country as a result 

of the implementation of these ideas by investors in OPIC-supported projects. 

The adoption of new production practices assists 

OPIC-supported enterprises in gaining a 

competitive edge in the global market, improves 

the domestic technology base, and can result in 

increased operating efficiencies. This increased 

productivity can also lower local prices. 

In FY11, 43% of SMQ respondents introduced 

innovative management techniques in the host 

country and 36% introduced novel marketing 

methods. Furthermore, almost 30% of projects 

introduced new products, while 29% of OPICsupported projects sought to introduce new 

technologies in the host country. 

In FY11, 28% of OPIC-supported projects 

reported that they were able to offer lower prices 

in the local market by introducing more efficient 

100%80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Overseas Training

Equal Employment Policy

Benefits for Women in 

the Workplace

Provide Company 

Benefits

Human Capital Development 
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 27

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Small-Medium Enterprise

Project Includes Local 

ownership

Poor Region within the 

Host Country

Physical, Financial, or 

Social Infrastructure

Economic Diversification

production and management processes. 

Economic Diversification 

Seventy-four percent of OPIC-supported projects improved access to 

infrastructure and 68% of OPIC-supported projects helped the underserved

OPIC encourages private sector investment in order to promote entrepreneurial growth and sustainable 

development around the world. OPIC also encourages economic diversification, which decreases the 

local economy’s dependence on international market swings and domestic business cycles, and helps 

promote overall macroeconomic stability. 

Approximately 74% of OPIC-supported projects 

strengthened the physical, financial, or social 

infrastructure, making infrastructure more accessible 

and affordable to all segments of the population. 

In FY11, approximately 50% of OPIC-supported 

projects had some local ownership and around 20% 

of these local owners were SMEs. 

Approximately 68% of OPIC-supported projects 

reporting in FY11 were located in poor or rural 

regions. OPIC recognizes the need for rural 

development in order to avoid creating or 

exacerbating income and developmental disparities 

between cities and rural areas. 

Corporate Social Responsibility 

Seventy-two percent of OPIC-supported projects offered community outreach 

programs

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) identifies organizations taking responsibility for the impact of their 

activities on customers, employees, shareholders, communities and the environment in all aspects of 

their operations. OPIC assesses CSR in its projects by quantifying socially-responsible and 

environmentally conscious benefits that are offered to the greater community. CSR includes, for 

example, community outreach programs in which the enterprise facilitates public access to companysponsored clinics and schools, funds community centers, sponsors sports teams and cultural events, or

provides financial support for local foundations and organizations. In FY11, 72% of the SMQ respondents 

were involved in these types of community outreach programs. 
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 28

Partnership 

Thirty-seven percent of OPIC-supported projects involved other Development 

Finance Institutions (DFIs)

One of OPIC’s objectives is to play a key role in leveraging resources for development and establishing 

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). 

Of the FY11 SMQs received by OPIC, approximately 37% 

reported the use of non-OPIC investment sources such as 

USAID, IFC, ADB, and EBRD, or a local development 

bank. The partnerships with other development agencies 

demonstrate OPIC’s commitment to cooperation with 

other donors in development finance. 

OPIC’s support for development also involves the creation 

of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) with local 

institutions such as civil society and non-governmental 

organizations. In FY11, 20% of OPIC-supported projects 

involved a PPP. 

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Public-Private 

Partnership

Multilateral 

Organization

Partnership
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 29

VI. EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 1: U.S. Employment and Associated Effects of OPIC-Supported Projects......30

Exhibit 2: Destination of Sales to Third Party Markets of OPIC-Supported

Projects FY11 Projections).............................................................. 31

Exhibit 3: U.S. Employment Effects and Host Country Location of OPIC-Supported 

Projects.......................................................................................33

Exhibit 4: Methodology for Calculating U.S. Employment Effects.......................... 37

Exhibit 5: OPIC’s Development Matrix Explained.............................................. 38

Exhibit 6: OPIC’s Financial Services Development Matrix Explained..................... 39

Exhibit 7: OPIC’s Greenhouse Gas Policy and Current Inventory..........................40

Exhibit 8: OPIC Site Monitoring Methodology................................................... 44
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 30

Exhibit 1: U.S. Employment and Associated Effects of OPIC-Supported Projects

Fiscal Year 2011 (Projections)

(All Dollar Figures are in Thousands)

Number

of

Projects

U.S.

Current 

Account

Inflows 1/

Effect on

U.S. Trade

Balance 1/

Industry

Sector

Final Destination of Project Output 2/

U.S.

Procurement 1/

Effect on U.S. Employment 1/ 3/

Host 

Country U.S. 3rd Country Initial Operating Total

A. Projects with Positive Effects on Employment 4/

Manufacturing 5/ 4 $397,068 $211,614 $0 $100,641 $397,081 95 407 502 $397,068

Minerals & Energy6/ 8 $364,187 $442,168 $0 $75,749 $364,187 447 54 501 $364,187

Other Services 7 $232,899 $51,081 $10 $60 $232,867 241 120 361 $232,449

Positive Total 19 $994,154 7/ $704,863 $10 $176,450 $994,135 784 580 1,364 $993,704

B. Projects with Neutral Effects on Employment 8/

Manufacturing 5/ 10 $2,205 $73,036 $6,260 $7,051 $2,205 3 1 4 ($29,095)

Minerals & Energy 4 $1,811 $275,533 $0 $0 $1,811 2 0 2 $1,811

Other Services 59 $3,099 $472,375 $0 $30,564 $1,733 3 0 3 ($3,099)

Neutral Total 73 $7,115 $820,945 $6,260 $37,615 $5,749 8 1 9 ($24,185)

C. Projects with Negative Effects on Employment 9/

Negative Total 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 

Net FY Total 92 $1,001,269 $1,525,808 $6,270 $214,064 $999,884 792 582 1,373 $969,519

1/ Total effect during first 5 years of project operation.

2/ Average annual effect during first 5 years of project operation.

3/ Person years of employment.

4/ Projects with a U.S. employment effect of 2 or more jobs (10 person years or more of employment during the first 5 years of project operation).

5/ There is one project within the Agribusiness sector in Section A (positive effects) and in Section B (neutral effects). To protect business confidentiality, 

the data for this project is included in the data for the Manufacturing sector.

6/ Eighty-three percent of minerals and energy projects in FY11 were in renewables.

7/ Totals may differ slightly from the sum of individual sectors due to rounding.

8/ Projects with a U.S. employment effect of 2 or fewer jobs (10 person years or less of employment during the first 5 years of project operation).

9/ There were no projects supported in fiscal 2011 that projected the loss of any U.S. employment.
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 31

Exhibit 2: Destination of Sales to Third Party Markets of OPIC–Supported Projects

Fiscal Year 2011 (Projections) 1/

PROJECTS WITH POSITIVE EFFECTS ON U.S. EMPLOYMENT 2/

 Annual Revenue ($)

Minerals and Energy 3/

All Countries $7,301,795

Italy $55,583,798

Turkey $12,863,075

Sector Total $75,748,668

Manufacturing

Europe Regional $85,751,949

Norway $14,888,908

Sector Total $100,648,857

Services

 Brazil

 Chile

 Dominican Republic

 Ecuador 

$10,000

$30,000

$10,000

$10,000

Sector Total $60,000

TOTAL REVENUE FOR PROJECTS WITH POSITIVE U.S. EFFECTS $176,449,525

1/ “Third party markets” refers to countries that are neither the U.S. nor the host country.

2/ Nineteen of the 92 OPIC-supported projects in FY11 had some positive effects. There were no projects supported in FY11 

that resulted in the loss of any U.S. jobs

3/ Eighty-three percent of the OPIC-supported projects in minerals and energy sector in FY11 were renewables.

Continued on next page 
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 32

Exhibit 2 (continued): Destination of Sales to Third Party Markets of OPIC – Supported Projects

Fiscal Year 2011 (Projections)

PROJECTS WITH NEUTRAL EFFECTS ON U.S. EMPLOYMENT4/ Annual Revenue ($)

Agribusiness

Brazil $827,345

Canada $827,345

China $206,836

Japan $206,836

Sector Total $2,068,362

Manufacturing

Algeria $600,000

Angola $410,200

Belarus $84,167

Benin $164,080

Cote D’Ivoire $246,120

Gabon $164,080

Georgia $87,827

Germany $29,276

Ghana $574,280

Poland $109,784

Saudi Arabia $800,000

Ukraine $512,506

West Bank $1,200,000

Sector Total $4,982,320 5/

Services

All Countries $25,508,000

Middle East $5,056,100

Sector Total $30,564,100

TOTAL REVENUE FOR PROJECTS WITH NEUTRAL U.S. EFFECTS $37,614,782

Fiscal Year TOTAL $214,064,307

4/ Seventy-three of the 92 OPIC-supported projects in FY11 had some neutral effects. They represent projects with a U.S. 

employment effect of 2 or fewer jobs (10 person years or less of employment during the first 5 years of project operation). 

There were no projects supported in FY11 that resulted in the loss of any U.S. jobs

5/ Totals may differ slightly from the sum of individual countries due to rounding.

Continued on next page 
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 33

Exhibit 3: U.S. Employment Effects and Host Country Location of OPIC-Supported Projects 

Fiscal Year 2011 (Projections)

A. PROJECTS WITH POSITIVE EFFECTS ON EMPLOYMENT 5/

COUNTRY/REGION AGRICULTURE

MINERALS & 

ENERGY 2/ MANUFACTURING SERVICES TOTAL

Ghana 1 1

Kenya 1 1

Liberia 1 1

Total Sub-Saharan Africa 0 1 1 1 3

Georgia 1 1

Russia 1 1

Ukraine 1 1 2

Total Europe 1 1 0 2 4

Columbia 1 1

Haiti 2 2

Mexico 1 1 2

Peru 1 1

St. Christopher-Nevis 1 1

Total Latin America 0 3 2 2 7

Afghanistan 1 1

India 2 2

Total East & South Asia 0 2 0 1 3

All OPIC Countries 1 1 2

Total Global 0 1 0 1 2

TOTAL POSITIVE 1 8 3 7 19

5/ Projects with a U.S. employment effect of 2 or more jobs (10 person years or more of employment during the first 5 years of operation).

The vast majority of projects were in the services sector. No projects that OPIC supported in FY11 resulted in the loss of any U.S. jobs.
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 34

Exhibit 3 (cont): U.S. Employment Effects and Host Country Location of OPIC-Supported Projects

B. PROJECTS WITH NEUTRAL EFFECTS ON EMPLOYMENT 6/

COUNTRY/REGION AGRICULTURE

MINERALS & 

ENERGY /2 MANUFACTURING SERVICES TOTAL

Africa Regional 1 1

Cameroon 1 1

Cote d'Ivoire 1 1

Kenya 2 2

Liberia 1 1

Madagascar 1 1

Nigeria 1 2 3

South Africa 3 3

Tanzania 1 1

Uganda 2 2

 Total Sub-Saharan Africa 0 0 2 14 16

Cambodia 1 1

Mongolia 1 1

Thailand 1 1

India 2 1 2 5

Pakistan 2 2

 Total East & South Asia 0 3 2 5 10

Azerbaijan 2 2

Georgia 1 4 5

Kazakhstan 1 1

Turkey 2 2

Uzbekistan 1 1

Kosovo 1 1

Bulgaria 1 2 3

Romania 1 1 2

Russia 1 1

Ukraine 1 1

 Total Europe 0 0 3 16 19

6/ Projects with a U.S. employment effect of two or fewer jobs (10 person years or less of employment during the first 5 years of operation).

The majority of projects were in the services sector. No projects that OPIC supported in FY11 resulted in the loss of any U.S. jobs.

Continued on next page
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 35

Exhibit 3 (cont): U.S. Employment Effects and Host Country Location of OPIC-Supported Projects

B. (cont) PROJECTS WITH NEUTRAL EFFECTS ON EMPLOYMENT

COUNTRY/REGION AGRICULTURE

MINERALS & 

ENERGY MANUFACTURING SERVICES TOTAL

All OPIC Countries 3 3

 Total Global 0 0 0 3 3

Argentina 1 1

Brazil 2 2

Ecuador 1 1

Haiti 1 1

Mexico 10 10

Panama 2 2

Peru 1 1

 Total Latin America 1 1 0 16 18

0

Iraq 1 1

Jordan 2 2 4

West Bank 2 2

 Total Middle East & N. Africa 0 0 2 5 7

TOTAL NEUTRAL 1 4 9 59 73

Continued on next page
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 36

Exhibit 3 (cont): U.S. Employment Effects and Host Country Location of OPIC-Supported Projects

C. PROJECTS WITH NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON EMPLOYMENT

COUNTRY/REGION AGRICULTURE

MINERALS & 

ENERGY MANUFACTURING SERVICES TOTAL

TOTAL NEGATIVE 0 0 0 0 0

D. TOTAL PROJECT EFFECTS ON EMPLOYMENT

TOTAL EFFECTS:

2 12 12 66 92

Positive, Neutral & Negative

ALL OPIC COUNTRIES

 
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 37

Exhibit 4: Methodology for Calculating U.S. Employment Effects 

Each project seeking OPIC support is reviewed on a case-by-case basis to estimate its U.S. 

employment effects. OPIC uses the project application to estimate expected initial and 

operational procurement from the United States by value and specific type of good or service. 

The U.S. employment generated by a project’s initial and five-year operational procurement of 

goods and services is then estimated by considering the direct and indirect employment 

necessary to produce those goods and services. That is, the employment effects incorporate the 

direct employment necessary to produce the procured goods and services, as well as the indirect 

employment required for the production of the associated intermediate inputs. This methodology 

is used by other federal agencies as well. 

OPIC details each type of U.S. good or service procured for each project and calculates the 

employment effect in that industrial sector as well as in the sectors that supply necessary 

components or inputs. By using this methodology, OPIC is able to ascertain 

employment-generation levels with greater precision than if it used an across-the-board average 

for all U.S. exports. By including indirect effects, OPIC's employment figures present a more 

accurate picture of the benefits accruing to U.S. workers from the procurement of goods and 

services. Finally, to confirm its estimates, OPIC monitors actual economic effects after project 

start-up and throughout the life of the OPIC’s involvement with the project. OPIC’s monitoring is 

described in further detail in the Monitoring section. 
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 38

Exhibit 5: OPIC’s Development Matrix Explained 

OPIC supports projects that are expected to serve as foundations for long-term economic growth, 

especially those that improve upon the host country’s infrastructure and provide the basic human 

necessities of shelter, food, water and health care – these types of projects are assessed on 

OPIC’s standard development matrix. Through this development impact assessment, OPIC 

evaluates and scores every proposed project in 26 key areas across three broad categories that 

objectively quantify its expected contribution to host-country development. 

 Category I covers job creation, training, local procurement, corporate social responsibility, 

and equal employment opportunity – five highly-weighted impacts that should be 

demonstrated by any project, regardless of sector or the level of economic development 

within the host country. 

 Category II covers 20 additional development indicators within such broad areas as 

human capacity building (degree of training), private sector development, resource 

leveraging, social effects, infrastructure improvements, macroeconomic and institutional 

effects, and technology/knowledge transfer. The degree to which projects demonstrate 

these additional developmental benefits depends significantly on the features of a given 

project. 

 Category III adjusts for the host country’s per capita GNP, reflecting both OPIC’s priority 

to steer investment into the poorest countries and the reality that nations most in need 

often lack the capacity to support more developmentally sophisticated investments. 

A project must score at least 50 out of 160 possible points on the matrix to be considered 

developmental and clearly eligible for OPIC support. A score of 100 to 160 qualifies a project as 

highly developmental. 
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 39

Exhibit 6: OPIC’s Financial Services Development Matrix Explained 

As more of OPIC’s projects focus on financial services, it became evident that in many cases the 

development matrix, originally created for traditional project finance and / or insurance projects, 

did not capture accurately the developmental impact of these projects. A new model was 

developed tailored to assessing the development impacts of financial services projects. The 

general structure of the financial services matrix is similar to the standard development matrix, 

but includes core indicators that are specific to financial services-related projects. These core 

indicators result in a development matrix that is a more comprehensive and accurate 

measurement of the developmental impact of financial services projects. The types of projects 

that are scored on the financial services matrix include framework agreements, mortgage finance 

and securitization projects, microfinance facilities, and general bank lending. 

To support its developmental mission, OPIC evaluates and scores every proposed financial 

services project in 11 key areas across three broad categories that objectively quantify its 

expected contribution to host-country development. 

 Category I covers financial instrument innovation or augmentation, multiplier/spillover 

effects, corporate governance, and capital mobilization and complementarity – four 

highly-weighted impacts that should be demonstrated by any project, regardless of sector 

or the level of economic development within the host country. 

 Category II covers six additional development indicators within such broad areas as 

sustainability, economic diversification, human capacity building (job creation and 

training), social effects, macroeconomic and institutional effects, and 

technology/knowledge transfer. The degree to which projects demonstrate these 

additional developmental benefits depends significantly on the features of a given project. 

 Category III adjusts for the host country’s per capita GNP, reflecting both OPIC’s priority 

to steer investment into the poorest countries and the reality that nations most in need 

often lack the capacity to support more developmentally sophisticated investments. 

A project must score at least 50 out of 160 possible points on the matrix to be considered 

developmental and clearly eligible for OPIC support. A score of 100 to 160 qualifies a project as 

highly developmental. 
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 40

Exhibit 7: OPIC’s Greenhouse Gas Policy and Current Inventory 

In Fiscal Year 2011, OPIC’s outside environmental auditor, Pace Global Energy Services LLC 

(Pace), with input from OPIC, identified six projects that had the potential to emit carbon dioxide 

equivalent emissions of 25,000 tons per year or greater but less than 100,000 tons per year (“Tier 

C”). Out of these six projects, one project is not expected to have GHG emissions greater than 

25,000 tons and one project is included in the Tier B list because its GHG emissions are greater 

than 100,000 tons per year. The remaining four projects are included in the list of Tier C projects. 

In order to account for GHG emissions from active projects in OPIC’s portfolio that have less than 

25,000 tons of CO2eq, OPIC adds an extra four%[1] emissions to the aggregate emissions 

number. The addition of four% to account for such sources is consistent with the GHG accounting 

methodology of The Climate Registry.[2] 

OPIC believes this additional four% is conservative because a significant percentage of the 

number of projects in OPIC’s portfolio (over half) are in sectors that are not expected to result in 

significant direct emissions (e.g. financial services, telecommunications, home construction). 

Pace’s Report on GHG emissions from projects that are expected to emit more than 25,000 

metric ton is available at www.opic.gov. 

OPIC calculates GHG emissions from projects in its active portfolio using methodologies and 

algorithms that rely on activity data such as fuel consumption or gas/oil throughput. In most 

cases, OPIC uses methodologies approved by The Climate Registry. For emissions from 

sources without Registry-approved methodologies, OPIC uses emission estimates provided by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Following the completion of the independent audit by Pace, OPIC provided investors the 

opportunity to comment on the Independent Auditor’s estimate, activity data, and methodology. 

The following table contains the final auditor estimates after consideration of investor input. 

 

[1] Prior to FY10, OPIC added an extra 5% emissions to the aggregate emissions number to account for GHG emissions 

from active projects in OPIC’s portfolio that were estimated to have generated less than 100,000 short tons of CO2eq. 

However, OPIC now estimates emissions for projects emitting less than 100,000 short tons CO2eq but greater than 

25,000 tons CO2eq. As a result, in FY10 and FY11, OPIC added approximately 4% to estimate the total emissions from 

those projects that individually emit less than 25,000 tons CO2eq. 

[2] THE CLIMATE REGISTRY is a nonprofit collaboration among North American states, provinces, territories and Native 

Sovereign Nations that sets consistent and transparent standards to calculate, verify and publicly report greenhouse gas 

emissions into a single registry. The Registry supports both voluntary and mandatory reporting programs and provides 

comprehensive, accurate data to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 5% value is from The Climate Registry’s 

General Reporting Protocol, Version 1.1, May 2008, p. 58. Available online at 

http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/GRP.pdf. 
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 41

OPIC GHG Emissions Inventory Estimate by Project

Tier1Project Name Location Description Capacity / 

Throughput

Fuel Type 2007 

(Baseline) 

Emissions 

(short tons 

CO2)

2,3

2008 Final 

Emissions 

(short tons 

CO2)

3

2009 Final 

Emissions 

(short tons 

CO2)

3

2010 Final 

Emissions 

(short tons 

CO2)

3

A Adapazari Elektrik 

Uretim Turkey Combined Cycle 777 MW Natural Gas 2,106,754 2,106,754 2,441,657 2,426,053

A

AES Jordan Jordan Combined 

Cycle

10,103,603 

MMBtu/yr Natural Gas --

b

590,940 1,318,13041,434,569

A

AES Nigeria Barge Nigeria

Engine-Based 

Power 

Generation

270 MW Natural Gas 1,166,398 1,341,157 988,271 949,754

A

Doga Enerji Turkey Combined 

Cycle 180 MW Natural Gas 740,762 740,762 672,014 655,981

A Gaza Private 

Generating PLC Gaza Combined Cycle 136.4 MW Natural Gas 293,804 303,535 325,926 228,627

A Gebze Elektrik 

Uretim Turkey Combined Cycle 1554 MW Natural Gas 4,121,923 4,121,923 4,794,979 4,833,330

A Grenada Electricity 

Services (WRB) Grenada

Engine-Based 

Power 

Generation

18 MW Diesel 

(Fuel Oil) 114,571 121,156 141,127 135,237

A Habibullah Coastal 

Power Pakistan Combined Cycle 140 MW Natural Gas 447,880 447,880 --

a

--

a

A

Isagen SA Colombia Combined 

Cycle 300 MW Natural Gas 203,010 --

c

300,706 305,181

A Izmir Elektrik 

Uretim Turkey Combined Cycle 1554 MW Natural Gas 4,694,380 4,694,380 4,300,376 4,739,787

A Jorf Lasfar Energy Morocco Steam Boiler 1356 MW Coal 14,268,496 --

a

--

a

--

a

A

NEPC Consortium 

Power Bangladesh

Engine-Based 

Power 

Generation

363,184 

MMBtu/yr Natural Gas 245,795 343,581 255,734 297,068

A Paiton Energy Indonesia Steam Boiler 1200 MW Coal 9,553,044 9,553,044 9,624,125 9,854,076

A Pakistan Water & 

Power Authority Pakistan Combined Cycle 150 MW Natural Gas 522,490 522,490 283,9375

283,937

A

Termovalle SCA Colombia Combined 

Cycle 199 MW Natural Gas --

c

--

c 223,9836

223,983

A Trakya Elektrik 

Uretim ve Ticaret Turkey Combined Cycle 478 MW Natural Gas 1,747,956 --

a

--

a

--

a
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 42

OPIC GHG Emissions Inventory Estimate by Project

Tier1Project Name Location Description Capacity / 

Throughput

Fuel Type 2007 

(Baseline) 

Emissions 

(short tons 

CO2)

2,3

2008 Final 

Emissions 

(short tons 

CO2)

3

2009 Final 

Emissions 

(short tons 

CO2)

3

2010 Final 

Emissions 

(short tons 

CO2)

3

B Accroven SRL Venezuela NGL Facility 800 MMscfd Natural Gas 998,677 445,832 --

a

--

a

B Baku-TblisiCeyhan Pipeline Azerbaijan Crude Oil 

Pipeline

247 million 

bbl

Natural Gas & 

Diesel 707,672 707,672 787,577 723,214

B

E.P. Interoil Papua New 

Guinea

Crude Oil 

Refinery

358,798 

MMBtu/yr Crude Oil 392,296 103,247 79,70910 75,92810

B Equate 

Petrochemical Kuwait Petrochemical Facility

1540 

MMBtu/hr Natural Gas 720,573 680,311 --

a

--

a

B

Foxtrot 

International

Cote 

d'Ivoire

Gas 

Extraction & 

Pipeline

1736 

MMscf/yr Natural Gas 104,484 104,484 104,484 --

11

B

Lukoil Rpk Vysotsk Russia Oil 14 million 

tons oil/yr

Oil & Natural 

Gas 70,76710 70,76710 76,33910 97,11710

B Natural Gas 

Liquids II Financing Nigeria NGL Facility 19.5 MMscfd Natural Gas 244,048 244,048 --

a

--

a

B

Various Egypt 

Subsidiaries 

(Apache)3

Egypt

Oil/Gas 

Extraction & 

Processing

29,934,702 

bbl/yr & 

89,910 

MMscf/yr

Oil & Natural 

Gas

3,071,933 3,244,190 3,294,654 3,465,842

B

West Africa Gas 

Pipeline7 Ghana

Gas 

Compression 

& 

Transmission

190 MMscfd Natural Gas --

b

--

b

244,728 91,45110

B Wilpro Energy 

Services (El 

Furrial)

Venezuela Gas 

Compression 60 MW Natural Gas 289,106 289,106 --

a

--

a

B Wilpro Energy 

Services (Pigap) Venezuela Gas Compression 100 MW Natural Gas 571,090 571,090 --

a

--

a

C Jose Lindley Peru Manufacturing - - --

d

--

d

25,000 25,000

C

Parko/Joshi Colombia Oil 20,000,000 

million m3/yr Natural Gas --

d

--

d

30,398 57,826

Latin America 

Power III8

Latin 

America Fund N/A N/A 2,077,500 2,077,500 2,077,500 2,077,500
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 43

Sub-total: 49,475,409 33,425,843 32,391,354 32,981,461

5% for Additional Sources: 2,473,770 1,671,292 -- --

4% for Additional Sources: -- -- 1,561,4009 1,562,1069

Total: 51,949,179 35,097,142 33,952,754 34,543,567

1 Tier A projects are fossil fuel fired power generation projects that emitted more than 100,000 short tons CO2; Tier B projects are facilities in the oil & gas, 

mining, transportation, manufacturing, or construction sectors with annual GHG emissions estimated to be above 100,000 short tons CO2; Tier C projects 

are those emitting less than 100,000 short tons CO2 and greater than 25,000 short tons CO2.

2

Baseline emissions are 100% of on-site emissions from the calendar year 2007 for all projects within OPIC’s active portfolio as of June 30, 2008. 

Emissions presented as reported by project sponsors. For those projects for which sponsors have not reported emissions, emissions are estimated based 

on project descriptions as well as publically available data and emissions factors. 

3 Based on information reported by the project sponsor, OPIC learned this project had reported emissions based on their equity share (50%) rather than 

accounting for emissions for the entire project in years 2007 and 2008. Because OPIC accounts for 100% of emissions from projects regardless of equity 

share, the 2007 and 2008 estimates were revised to reflect 100% of emissions from this project.

4 Net energy generated increased from 10,103,603 in 2008 to 22,536,748 MMBtu in 2009. This generation increase was responsible for the emissions 

increase.

5 2009 emissions are significantly lower due to fewer reported operating hours.

6 2009 emissions are significantly higher due to increased reported operating hours.

7 The West Africa Gas Pipeline was included in baseline but it was not yet operational in 2008. Therefore, no emissions were reported for 2007 or 2008.

8 Per agreement between Latin American Power III and OPIC, the Fund agreed not to “make an investment in a Portfolio Company if after such investment, 

the assets and operations of all Portfolio Companies then held by the Fund would emit (in the aggregate and on a calendar year basis) in excess of 

2,077,500 tons of CO2eq as calculated in accordance with the IPCC”.

9

Buffer is calculated using the following formula: [(Tier A + Tier B+ Latin America Power III Funds) * 5%] – Tier C. For an explanation of this difference, 

please see footnote [1] in Exhibit 7.

10 Even though emissions are below the threshold, the project has the potential to emit greater than the threshold and has therefore, been included.

11 In 2010, Foxtrot operated for a minimal period of time and thus had corresponding GHG emissions below the established threshold of 25,000 tons.

a

Emissions are not reported for projects for those years when they cease to be active in OPIC’s portfolio.

b

Emissions begin to be accounted for the year they become active in OPIC’s portfolio.

c

Because emissions were less than 100,000 tons of CO2eq., emissions from this project were not included. For more detail, see footnote [1] in Exhibit 7.

d Tier C is a new category for FY10 and therefore emissions for Tier C projects are not included in the baseline or 2008 estimates.
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 44

Exhibit 8: OPIC Site Monitoring Methodology 

(Statutory Disciplines: Environment, U.S. Economic Impact, Labor, and Host 

Country Developmental Impact) 

OPIC performs comprehensive and integrated monitoring to evaluate the U.S. and host-country economic 

effects as well as the environmental, social, health and safety, and general working conditions of the 

projects it supports. OPIC’s integrated project monitoring is designed to ensure that each project 

complies with statutory and contractual requirements in these areas. Project monitoring consists of site 

visits to projects, in addition to the analysis of information submitted annually by investors in the form of 

an online “Self Monitoring Questionnaire.” As of 1993, Self Monitoring Questionnaires are required of all 

investors per the OPIC finance agreement or insurance contract. 

Using a statistical sampling methodology combined with risk-based monitoring, OPIC identifies 

investment projects that OIP staff across all disciplines will site monitor, drawing active projects that 

exhibit specific characteristics within the portfolio. The sample of projects selected for site monitoring 

includes: (1) a random sample of projects supported by the agency during a three-year period or 

“monitoring round”; (2) projects supported during this period that are sensitive with respect to U.S. 

economic effects, labor or environment, social, health and safety issues; and (3) projects from other years 

that have either not been site-monitored in the past or that fit in logistically with randomly sampled project 

in similar regions or countries. This “sensitive project” sample ultimately provides a conservative bias to 

the monitored results. 

Labor

OPIC monitors projects for compliance with contractual worker rights requirements through a combination 

of annual reporting by companies as well as site visits to both random and selected samples of projects. 

OPIC targets its worker rights monitoring efforts toward countries and sectors with a higher potential for 

possible worker rights violations. 

Because certain areas of worker rights violations may be difficult to identify from a typical project site 

monitoring visit, in instances when OPIC determines further investigation is warranted for a project, OPIC 

may employ trained and certified labor rights auditors, usually recruited from the NGO community with 

reputations for impartiality and credibility among both the labor and business communities, to perform a 

full project audit. The auditors spend as much time as necessary to investigate thoroughly potential 

violations. At a minimum, an audit would include independent and confidential interviews with employees 

and management. Interviews may also include relevant entities such as government officials and 

knowledgeable local NGOs and organized labor groups. 

Environment, Social, Health, and Safety (E&S) 

With respect to E&S issues, projects selected for site monitoring in a given year are prioritized based on 

an environmental and social risk rating. Environmental and social risk ratings are based on several 

factors including project sensitivity, host country context, project-level environmental and social 

management system, and investor experience in implementing projects of similar complexity. OPIC 

assesses the E&S performance of a project against applicable benchmarks including contract conditions, 

international standards and guidelines, and industry best practices. Factors included in the performance 

assessment include an evaluation of the project’s environmental and social management systems, the 

effectiveness of mitigation, including pollution controls in risk reduction, and the efficiency of the 

operations, including energy efficiency.

U.S. Economic Impact

All projects visited are evaluated for their actual impact on the United States and host country economies, 

including the employment generation effects of the investments. OPIC ensures that projects do not 

negatively impact the U.S. economy. This analysis includes verifying export levels to the U.S. (if any) or 

to other countries, calculating the U.S. balance of payments impact, and verifying compliance with any 
OPIC Annual Policy Report 2011 45

restrictions put forward in the OPIC loan agreement or insurance contract (e.g. restrictions on exporting to 

the U.S. or significant U.S. export markets). 

Developmental Impact

Regarding host country economic impact, projects are reviewed across the same criteria as used at the 

time of project approval. Thus, an “apples-to-apples” comparison can be made between original 

estimates and actual operations. For example, if a project originally expected to hire 100 local workers, 

actual employment numbers are verified and compared to this forecast. Additionally, if a project is 

expected, for example, to build a school for the children of its employees, this will be verified. Other 

developmental impacts not identified or anticipated at the time of application also are evaluated and 

quantified during site monitoring. Finally, the project is scored using actual findings against the initial 

developmental impact evaluation using the same criteria projected in the project’s original OPIC 

clearance.