Report of the 

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

ANNUAL REPORT 

 ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT 

FISCAL YEAR 2014 

Submitted Pursuant to 

Section 240A of the 

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 

As Amended

September 2015 
1 

Annual Report on Development Impact 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................... 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 2

I. FISCAL YEAR OVERVIEW ............................................................................................... 4

II. DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 7

Projected Development Impacts from FY14 Projects........................................................ 7

Assessing Development Impact...................................................................................... 7

Impacts from OPIC’s portfolio in FY14.......................................................................... 8

III. ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, SAFETY & SOCIAL IMPACTS ............................................. 11

Project Screening and Assessment................................................................................ 11

Mitigating Climate Change.......................................................................................... 13

IV. LABOR AND HUMAN RIGHTS....................................................................................... 15

Country Eligibility...................................................................................................... 15

Project Screening and Assessment................................................................................ 15

Human Rights............................................................................................................ 16

V. SUPPORT FOR THE U.S. ECONOMY................................................................................ 17

VI. MONITORING OF ACTIVE PROJECTS............................................................................ 19

Site-Monitoring.......................................................................................................... 19

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

VII. CLIENT SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS................................................................... 22

VIII. EXHIBITS. METHODOLOGIES, PROJECTIONS AND OTHER DATA .................................. 23

Exhibit 1: U.S. Employment and Associated Effects of OPIC-Supported Projects............. 24

Exhibit 2: Destination of Sales to Third Party1/ Markets of OPIC-Supported Projects Fiscal 

Year 2014 (Projections) .............................................................................................. 25

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

Fiscal Year 2014 (Projections)..................................................................................... 26

Exhibit 4: Methodology for Calculating U.S. Employment Effects.................................. 27

Exhibit 5: OPIC’s Development Matrix ....................................................................... 28

Exhibit 6: OPIC’s Greenhouse Gas Policy and Current Inventory ................................... 29

Exhibit 7: OPIC Site Monitoring Methodology............................................................. 33

Exhibit 8: Site Monitored Projects in FY2014 ............................................................... 35
2 

Annual Report on Development Impact 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) is the U.S. Government’s development finance institution. OPIC 

mobilizes U.S. private capital to help solve critical development challenges and, in doing so, advances U.S. foreign 

policy. 

In Fiscal Year 2014 (“FY14”), OPIC committed 

support to 86 new projects in developing and emerging 

markets. This report summarizes the projected impact 

that these projects will have on local economies. It 

also summarizes the results of OPIC’s site monitoring 

activities that were conducted on previous years’

projects in order to ensure compliance with OPIC’s

standards for environmental and social sustainability 

and to measure projects’ developmental outcomes. 

Development Impact 

OPIC supports projects in some of the most 

challenging business environments in order to catalyze 

economic development. In doing so, OPIC supports 

key U.S. foreign policy objectives and promotes 

political stability. OPIC- supported projects create new 

and permanent jobs, increase revenues for hostcountry governments, and foster future private sector 

activity in developing and emerging markets. 

Simultaneously, OPIC-supported projects create 

inclusive economic growth by reaching traditional 

underserved populations and help transform 

economies by bringing new expertise to these markets. 

In the long run, OPIC-supported projects improve 

governance and ensure political stability. This is 

particularly important, given that 34 percent of OPIC’s 

portfolio is in states that are experiencing or vulnerable 

to conflict. 

OPIC leverages the U.S. private sector in order to help 

solve development challenges. OPIC has recently 

emerged as a leader in promoting investment in 

renewable resources, and OPIC’s commitments in this 

sector have grown more than ten-fold since 2009. 

OPIC also plays an important role in implementing key 

U.S. foreign policy initiatives including Power Africa. 

Over a quarter of OPIC’s portfolio is now committed 

to development in Sub-Saharan Africa. 

Environment, Social, Labor, and Human Rights Impact 

OPIC-supported projects meet international best practices for environmental and social sustainability and respect labor 

and human rights. OPIC screens each project to identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts. In FY14, OPIC 

classified six new projects as “Category A” given their heightened environmental and social risks and designated two 

projects as “Special Consideration” given their heightened labor rights risks. OPIC requires additional mitigation and 

monitoring for these projects. OPIC also tracks the direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from active projects in its 

portfolio. Since 2008, the aggregate, direct GHG emissions associated with OPIC-supported projects in its active 

OPIC expects that the 86 new projects supported in 

FY14 will:

 Provide $6.8 billion in total new investment in 

developing and emerging markets.

 Create over 9,000 permanent host country jobs 

over five years, in addition to 360,000 local jobs 

that OPIC’s current portfolio supports. 

 Increase renewable energy generation capacity 

in emerging markets. OPIC committed a record 

$1.2 billion to new renewable energy projects in 

FY14 which will provide 1,027 megawatts of 

renewable energy generation capacity.

o This will avoid the equivalent of 1.9 million 

tons of CO2 emissions per year; which is 

equal to the emissions of 400,000 passenger 

vehicles each year.

 Generate $144 million in host country tax 

revenue in FY14.

 Procure $5.5 billion in local goods and services, 

and generate $720 million in tax revenues for 

host country governments during the first five 

years of operations.

 Support 20 new projects throughout SubSaharan Africa. Three of these 20 projects fall 

under President Obama’s Power Africa 

Initiative and are projected to mobilize $760 

million in private capital while generating power 

from wind, solar, and thermal energy sources.
3 

Annual Report on Development Impact 

portfolio decreased by almost 45 million tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) from 52 million tons of CO2e in FY08 to 

about seven million tons in FY14. This represents an 86% reduction in portfolio emissions. 

Support for U.S. Economy 

New FY14 OPIC-supported projects are expected to support 409 U.S. jobs over the next five years by procuring an 

estimated $316 million in goods and services from the United States. Seventy-eight percent of these projected U.S. 

jobs are associated with renewable resource projects. As with all projects, OPIC reviewed FY14 projects to ensure 

that none were expected to result in the loss of U.S. jobs. 

U.S. small businesses were significant partners in more than half of new OPIC-supported projects in FY14. In 

addition, OPIC expects that new projects committed in FY14 will procure $15 million in goods and services from 

U.S. small businesses located in 16 states and the District of Columbia. 

Project Monitoring 

OPIC monitors every project from inception to conclusion in order to ensure compliance with OPIC policies and to 

assess projects’ development impact. OPIC monitors projects annually through a self-monitoring questionnaire as well 

as through periodic site visits, which are conducted on both a risk-based and random basis. 

Other Initiatives 

OPIC is undertaking a number of initiatives to enhance its ability to assess development impact and improve its 

monitoring and reporting. These include: 

 Harmonizing indicators with other development finance institutions (DFIs). OPIC is participating in working 

groups with other DFIs to develop standardized development impact indicators. Adoption of standardized 

indicators by multiple DFIs will reduce reporting burdens on clients and allow for more efficient reporting 

by DFIs. 

 Refining indicators used to assess development impact. With over two years’ experience in using a revised 

model to assess development impact, OPIC is reviewing its experience and the results of its assessments and 

plans to refine its methodology. 

 Revised reporting. Using feedback from stakeholders and incorporating the results of the indicator 

harmonization effort, OPIC is in the process of revising its client reporting forms to make them more clientfriendly and improve response rates. 

 Improving accessibility of data. OPIC is improving its data infrastructure and processes to improve the 

accessibility of development impact data both within the agency and to external stakeholders. 

 Client satisfaction. OPIC collects client satisfaction data through a voluntary survey. In FY14, 85 percent 

of respondents reported overall satisfaction in working with OPIC and 87 percent reported that they would 

work with OPIC again. 



7 

Annual Report on Development Impact 

II. DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS

Projected Development Impacts from FY14 Projects

OPIC’s mission is to mobilize U.S. private capital to help solve critical development challenges and, in doing so, 

advance U.S. foreign policy. OPIC supports projects that will serve as foundations for long-term economic growth, 

provide new products and services, and deliver significant economic and social benefits to developing and emerging 

economies. While direct job creation is perhaps the most visible and important of these benefits, OPIC-supported 

projects also generate additional local economic benefits by procuring goods and services from local suppliers, paying 

taxes to host country governments, which provide public services, and at times contributing to developing countries’ 

export base, an important driver of economic growth. The following projected information in Table 1 is compiled 

from investor-supplied data that is analyzed by OPIC. 

Table 1

Projected Development Impacts of

New FY14 Projects

Managerial, Professional and Technical Jobs* 3,595

Unskilled labor* 5,683

 Total 9,278

Initial host country procurement $3.7 billion

Host country operational procurement* $1.7 billion

Net annual taxes, revenues and

duties paid to the host country* $144 million

Annual host country current account impact *

Exports generated & imports replaced * $244 million

Project-related imports $29 million

 Net impact * $215 million

* Average annual amount projected over a 5-year period

Assessing Development Impact 

As the U.S. Government’s development finance institution, OPIC seeks to support projects that will produce strong 

positive developmental impact. 

While many of the benefits of these projects are clear from the start, these same projects often produce indirect 

benefits such as creating jobs, increasing a country’s tax revenue or generating procurement of local goods and 

services. 
8 

Annual Report on Development Impact 

The following spider graph charts the potential developmental impact across the following five categories of 

developmental impact. 

 Development reach: OPIC seeks projects targeting those with the greatest need. This category measures 

the extent to which a project will reach previously underserved populations. 

 Environmental and community benefits: OPIC puts a premium on projects that support the planet and its 

people. In FY14, OPIC committed to projects that are projected to generate more than 1,000 MW of clean 

energy. 

 Job creation and human capacity building: New projects OPIC committed to support in FY14 are 

expected to create over 9,000 host-country jobs.

 Host country macroeconomic or financial benefits: OPIC projects often generate macroeconomic 

benefits to the host country in the form of additional tax revenue and local procurement of goods and 

services. 

 Demonstration effects: A development project often results in the introduction of new products or 

services, or business or production process that benefit the host country economy. 

Impacts from OPIC’s portfolio in FY14

Active OPIC-supported projects are required to report annually on U.S. economic and host country development 

impact and relevant environmental, social, health & safety, and labor issues by completing an online Self-Monitoring 

Questionnaire (SMQ). In 2014, OPIC received and reviewed 348 SMQs from 405 projects for which SMQs were 

required, a response rate of 86%. The development impacts reported below are based on data obtained from 334 

SMQs.5

Development Reach 

 

5 These results do not include development impact data from 14 SMQs because they were incomplete. 
9 

Annual Report on Development Impact 

OPIC supports projects that have a significant development reach to poor, underdeveloped, and/or rural areas of the 

host country. When support for a financial intermediary increases lending in low income or rural areas, for example, 

it can increase access to finance for previously underserved populations. 

 OPIC-supported financial intermediaries reported that they lent $12.8 billion to individuals and businesses 

in rural areas 

Environmental and Community Benefits 

Projects often provide benefits to local communities and improve the local environment, which enhances the positive 

relationship between the enterprise and local stakeholders. Among SMQ respondents: 

 61% offered at least one type of benefit to the local community such as recreational facility, schools, 

scholarship programs and medical clinics 

 47% participate in initiatives to improve the environment 

Jobs and Human Capacity Building 

In FY14, SMQ data showed that OPIC-supported projects employed 360,000 people in the host countries. 

OPIC’s current portfolio supports:

Romania’s leading provider of advanced 

diagnostic imaging services procured more 

than $770,000 in goods and services from 

U.S. suppliers last year, and paid $865,000 in 

duties and taxes to the host government. The 

company also provided health services to 

175,000 patients and employed more than 300 

permanent workers.

A financial institution which is the majority 

shareholder of 22 banks in Africa, Latin 

America, and Eastern Europe, reported 

providing loans to over 2 million MSMEs and 

disadvantaged lower- and middle- income 

earners worldwide. With an average loan size 

of $17,500, this has created over 11,000 

permanent jobs.
10

Annual Report on Development Impact 

 137,000 local jobs in Europe & Eurasia 

 68,000 local jobs in Latin America & the Caribbean 

 61,000 local jobs in Asia & the Pacific 

 60,000 local jobs in Sub-Saharan Africa 

 28,000 local jobs in the Middle East and North Africa 

OPIC-supported projects offer good quality jobs, helping to increase overall skill level of employees. Of all the local 

workers reported by OPIC’s clients: 

 91% of women held a job at the managerial or professional level 

 86% of men held a job at the managerial or professional level 

OPIC-supported projects are strongly aligned with international best practices in human resource management: 

 92% of OPIC-supported projects offered employees various company benefits including transportation, 

meal subsidies, pension plans, or medical coverage; that exceeded requirements under local law6 

 87% of OPIC-supported projects have a grievance mechanism in place for employees to express complaints 

or issues

Host Country Macroeconomic or Financial Benefits

By procuring goods and services locally from host country businesses, OPIC-supported projects can strengthen 

existing local businesses, help launch new local businesses, and increase the diffusion of technology. Among SMQ 

respondents: 

 63% procure locally, injecting $3.8 billion into local economies in a one-year period 

 $6.9 billion was paid to host country governments in duties, taxes, and other payments in a one-year period 

Demonstration Effects 

 

Projects supported by OPIC increase economic development by helping local enterprises acquire knowledge and 

technology, which increase productivity. Among SMQ respondents: 

 63% include local ownership, which increases knowledge transfer. Of this local ownership, 21% is 

comprised of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and 9% are women or women-owned enterprises 

 57% provide technology or knowledge transfer

 

6 With the adoption of the Environmental and Social Policy Statement (ESPS) in 2010, all OPIC-supported projects are required to have a HR 

policy and grievance mechanism in place for employees. 

A broadband telecommunications provider based in Barbados reported procuring more than $51 million in 

goods and services from U.S. suppliers. The company paid more than $54 million in duties and taxes to the 

host government, served more than 600,000 customers and provided more than 2,300 permanent jobs.
11

Annual Report on Development Impact 

III. ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, SAFETY & SOCIAL IMPACTS 

Project Screening and Assessment 

OPIC screens all potential projects to identify the risk of adverse environmental and social impacts and to identify 

project impacts that could preclude OPIC support. If a project is determined to be categorically ineligible,7 OPIC 

immediately informs the applicant so as to avoid unnecessary effort or expense. If the project is eligible, OPIC 

categorizes the project to determine the requirements for documentation, disclosure, consultation, reporting and postcommitment monitoring. Projects may be categorized as A, B, C, or D depending on their potential risks and impacts. 

Category A projects represent the greatest potential for adverse environmental and/or social impacts, whereas 

Category B projects are likely to have more limited adverse impacts, and Category C projects represent the least 

potential for adverse impact. Category D is reserved for certain projects involving financial intermediaries that make 

investments in or provide financing to other projects or enterprises (“Subprojects”) engaged in activities within 

Categories A, B or C. OPIC screens, reviews, and provides prior written consent to Subprojects on the basis of 

potential environmental and social risks. As noted above, in this report, Subprojects of investment funds are counted 

as projects. 

OPIC uses a rigorous methodology for assessing and calculating potential environmental and social 

impacts. 

OPIC uses environmental and social assessment to evaluate the potential environmental and social impacts of an 

applicant’s project and to identify means to improve the project by preventing, minimizing, remediating or 

compensating for potential adverse impacts as a condition of OPIC support. The process includes the following: 

 identification of potential adverse environmental and social impacts; 

 disclosure of the project’s environmental and social impact assessment (ESIAs) for public review and 

comment (if the project has been screened as Category A); 

 comparison of the project’s performance in relation to internationally-accepted standards and alternative 

approaches; 

 evaluation or design of mitigation measures; and 

 evaluation or design of associated management and monitoring measures. 

Five of the 86 projects that OPIC committed to support in FY14 were screened as Category A. Category A projects 

have the potential to have significant adverse environmental and/or social impacts that are sensitive, diverse or 

unprecedented in the absence of adequate mitigation measures. The FY14 Category A projects were: 

 a gas-fired power plant in Nigeria; 

 a wind power project in Kenya; 

 two wind power projects in Mexico; and 

 a hydropower project in Colombia. 

For Category A projects, OPIC requires the preparation of a full environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA), 

which was subsequently disclosed to the public for comment (see next page). 

 

7 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 OPIC’s Environmental and Social Policy Statement. 

13

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Transactions rejected on environmental and/or social grounds 

OPIC works diligently to ensure that its policies regarding environmental and social impact are well understood. OPIC 

counsels against projects that are potentially problematic from an environmental or social impact perspective before 

formal applications are submitted. As a result, OPIC did not reject any applications for finance or insurance in FY14 

on environmental or social grounds. 

Mitigating Climate Change 

Since 2008, the aggregate, direct GHG emissions associated with OPIC supported projects in its active portfolio 

decreased by 44.52 million tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) from 51.95 million tons of CO2e in 2008 to 7.43 million 

tons in FY14. This represents an 86% reduction in emissions. 

OPIC has committed to: (a) reducing the direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with projects in OPIC’s 

active portfolio (using the direct GHG emissions of OPIC’s active portfolio on June 30, 2008 as a baseline), (i) by 

30% over a ten-year period and (ii) by 50% over a 15-year period; and (b) increasing investment support to renewable 

energy and energy efficiency projects. “Direct emissions” are the result of the combustion of fuel by OPIC-supported 

projects. 

For the purpose of tracking progress in achieving its GHG reduction goals, OPIC procured the services of an outside 

environmental auditor to develop a baseline GHG inventory of OPIC-supported projects. The organizational boundary 

for the baseline inventory was defined as 100% of the direct emissions during the calendar year 2007 from all projects 

within OPIC’s active portfolio as of June 30, 2008 (2008 baseline emissions). Accounting for 100% of project 

emissions is more conservative than the equity or operational control approach, which assume partial ownership of a 

project’s greenhouse gas emissions. OPIC accounts for 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, defined as more 

than 25,000 tons per year (tpy) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The 25,000 tpy threshold was selected to be consistent with 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s threshold criteria for significant GHG emissions.8 

Baseline emissions in 2008 were estimated to be 51,949,179 tons of CO2e.9 Subsequent annual estimates are based 

on investor-provided data indicative of actual operating conditions and internationally recognized algorithms. A buffer 

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

than 25,000 tons of CO2e. This buffer is calculated such that the buffer plus the estimated emissions for projects that 

emit between 25,000 and 100,000 tons of CO2e is equal to five percent of estimated emissions for projects that emit 

over 100,000 tons. 

The total inventory of GHG emissions during calendar year 2013 for projects active as of September 30, 2014 (FY14 

emissions) was 7,427,755 tons of CO2e This represents an 85.7% reduction in portfolio emissions from the 2008 

baseline. The large decrease in emissions relative to previous GHG inventories was primarily due to seven thermal 

power generation projects falling out of OPIC’s portfolio during FY13, while only much smaller sources became 

active in the same time period. Figure 7 shows the development of OPIC’s portfolio GHG emissions profile as 

compared to the 2008 portfolio emissions baseline and the 30% and 50% reduction targets. For a more complete 

explanation of OPIC’s GHG policy and current inventory, please refer to Exhibit 6. 

 

8 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. 

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

based on its 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 estimates for calendar years 2007 and 2008 were revised to reflect 100% of emissions. 
14

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2014 Reporting 

As illustrated in the table below, OPIC reports no “Scope 1” emissions (resulting from the direct burning of fossil 

fuels) associated with its activities. OPIC reports “Scope 2” emissions (resulting from OPIC’s electricity purchases 

at its office) totaling 1,132 short tons of CO2e. The “Scope 3” emissions that OPIC reports for FY14 are those direct 

(i.e., Scope 1) GHG emissions for calendar year 2013 associated with projects in OPIC’s active portfolio as of 

September 30, 2014, calculated according to the methodology mentioned above. 

OPIC Fiscal Year 2014 CO2e Emissions 

SCOPE 1 EMISSIONS

(Emissions from OPIC’s 

direct combustion of fuel)

SCOPE 2 EMISSIONS

(Emissions as a result of OPIC’s 

Purchased Electricity)

SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS

(Direct Emissions – i.e., Scope 1 emissions 

– from projects in OPIC’s Active Portfolio)

0 tons CO2e 1,132 tons CO2e 7,427,755 tons CO2e

On a transactional basis, OPIC considers reduction and control alternatives for all projects, including opportunities to 

enhance energy and operational efficiency; protect and enhance sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases, such as 

natural forests; and apply emerging technologies for capture, storage, and recovery of greenhouse gases. 
15

Annual Report on Development Impact 

IV. LABOR AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Country Eligibility 

OPIC tracks country eligibility as part of its worker rights statutory obligations. 

OPIC’s Environmental and Social Policy Statement outlines OPIC’s policies on country eligibility for OPICsupported projects based on labor-related statutory obligations. To maintain consistency across the U.S. Government, 

where available OPIC follows the worker rights determinations made by the President of the United States 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) that also requires beneficiary countries to take steps towards Internationally 

Recognized Worker Rights. During FY14, no countries lost their GSP or OPIC benefits on worker rights grounds. 

The USTR continued formal GSP country practice reviews of the following countries on worker rights grounds: 

Georgia, Niger, Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Iraq, and Fiji. USTR is also reviewing worker rights in Burma as part of 

a larger GSP eligibility review for that country. OPIC will adjust country eligibility status on the basis of USTR’s 

final determination in these countries. 

Project Screening and Assessment 

OPIC implements policies consistent with its statutory requirements related to respect for human rights and the rights 

of workers. OPIC screens all potential projects to identify labor-related and human rights impacts to determine 

eligibility. If a potential project is not categorically prohibited, it undergoes a full labor review. None of the potential 

projects reviewed in FY14 were determined to be categorically prohibited on labor-related grounds10, and two of the 

new FY14 projects were classified as “Special Consideration,” a designation that requires additional oversight in the 

form of an independent audit and annual reporting for projects with a heightened potential for labor rights violations. 

The Special Consideration Projects are: 

 a wind power project in Kenya due the geographical scale and complexity of managing a relatively large 

workforce in a labor-intensive industry in Kenya; and 

 a palm oil project in Sierra Leone due to supply chain concerns regarding reports of the use of bonded and / 

or harmful child labor in the palm oil sector Sierra Leone. 

OPIC uses a rigorous methodology to assess potential labor-related risks. 

OPIC uses its labor assessment to evaluate the potential risks to workers at the project and to identify means to improve 

the project by preventing and minimizing such risks as a condition of OPIC support. The process includes the 

following:

 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; and 

 evaluation or design of associated management and monitoring measures. 

All 86 new projects that were supported in FY14 were subject to a full worker rights review, and OPIC support was 

conditioned upon adherence to OPIC’s worker rights requirements. 

 

10 Categorically prohibited projects have potential environmental or social impacts that preclude the project from receiving OPIC support. They 

are listed in Appendix B of the OPIC Environmental and Social Policy Statement, available on OPIC’s website.
16

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Human Rights 

OPIC subjects every potential project to a human rights review process to ensure all OPIC-supported projects meet 

the statutory requirements of the Foreign Assistance Act. OPIC consults with the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau 

for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) on this review to ensure consistency between OPIC and DRL 

regarding relevant human rights matters in OPIC eligible countries. OPIC did not decline support for any projects in 

FY14 as a result of the human rights review process. Table 2 shows a list of countries in which OPIC no longer 

operates due to LHR issues.

Table 2

Countries in which OPIC does not operates Due to Labor and /or Human Rights issues

Bangladesh GSP status suspended as a result of workers’ rights petitions,8/2013

Belarus Lost GSP eligibility on workers’ rights grounds, 9/11/2000

Qatar Non – GSP, lost OPIC eligibility through direct petition, 1995

Saudi Arabia Non – GSP, lost OPIC eligibility through direct petition, 1995

Sudan Lost GSP eligibility on workers’ rights grounds, 7/1/1991

Syria GSP suspended due to workers’ rights issues, 8/14/1992

UAE Non – GSP, lost OPIC eligibility through direct petition, 1995

China Non – GSP, lost OPIC eligibility on human rights grounds, 1990
17

Annual Report on Development Impact 

V. SUPPORT FOR THE U.S. ECONOMY

FY14 projects are expected to support 409 U.S. jobs over the next five years. No FY14 project is expected 

to result in the loss of any U.S. jobs. 

OPIC carefully screens potential projects for their effect on employment in the United States. OPIC does not support 

projects projected to harm the U.S. economy or result in the loss of U.S. jobs. Based on projected procurement of 

goods and services from the United States of $316 million over five years, new FY14 projects are expected to support 

409 U.S. jobs. Renewable energy projects will support 78 percent of these jobs. Table 3 describes the projected U.S. 

Economic Benefits of New FY14 Projects. 

Exhibits 1-3 of this report provide detailed 

information on OPIC-supported projects and their 

impact on the U.S. economy. 

Thirteen of the new projects are expected to have a 

positive impact on U.S. jobs and 73 are expected to 

have a neutral impact. None are expected to have a 

negative impact on U.S. jobs. 

Exhibit 4 provides a detailed description of the 

methodology used to calculate U.S. employment 

effects. 

U.S. small businesses were significant partners 

in more than half of new OPIC-supported 

projects in FY14. 

OPIC recognizes the importance of small businesses 

as a key driver of U.S. economic growth and actively 

partners with these firms to enable their expansion 

into developing markets. 

Over the last five years, OPIC has committed $5.6 billion in finance and insurance to more than 348 new projects with 

significant involvement of U.S. small businesses. 

OPIC’s efforts to reach out to U.S. small businesses continued to yield positive results in FY14. OPIC supported 46

new projects that involved U.S. small businesses, representing more than half of all new FY14 projects: 

 21 U.S. small businesses received OPIC investment guarantees directly or through investment funds or 

financial intermediaries; 

 22 U.S. small businesses received direct loans from OPIC; and 

 3 U.S. small businesses received OPIC political risk insurance coverage. 

In addition to financing and insurance received from OPIC, U.S. small businesses also benefit through procurement. 

New FY14 projects are expected to procure $15 million over the next five years from 24 small businesses located in 

16 states and the District of Columbia. 

OPIC also committed to providing approximately $115 million in financing and insurance to women-and/or minorityowned U.S. businesses in connection with four new FY14 projects. 

Table 3

Projected U.S. Economic Benefits of New

FY14 Projects

Total project investment* $6.8 billion

 U.S. investment in projects* $3.6 billion

 U.S. percent of total 53%

U.S. exports* $316 million

 Initial procurement $266 million

 Operational procurement* $50 million

U.S. jobs supported* 409

* Total amount over a 5-year period
18

Annual Report on Development Impact 

OPIC's direct procurement of goods and services from women- and minority-owned businesses amounted to $656,000, 

which represents nearly 5% of the total amount of OPIC direct procurement in FY14. 

 


21

Annual Report on Development Impact 

o During site monitoring, 25 of 27 projects were found to be fully in compliance with all OPIC 

covenants regarding labor conditions. 

o Of the two site-monitored projects that were not fully in compliance with OPIC covenants or the 

IFC Performance Standards related to labor and working conditions, compliance issues related to 

employment contracts, management systems, and labor relations. In each of these cases, OPIC’s 

labor and human rights group informed the project sponsor of the deficiency and required 

implementation of corrective actions to bring the project into compliance. 

OPIC also requires self-reporting of policy compliance by clients in the SMQ. SMQ responses can provide early 

warnings about potential issues that may emerge in OPIC supported projects. 

 99% of SMQ respondents reported compliance with conditions imposed by OPIC related to environment, 

health and workers’ safety. Two projects reported that they were not compliant with OPIC conditions related 

to environment, health and workers’ safety. Both projects submitted information describing the steps they 

are taking to remedy the non-compliance, and OPIC is monitoring them on an ongoing basis. 

 100% of SMQ respondents reported compliance with local or host country environmental, health, and safety 

laws. 
22

Annual Report on Development Impact 

VII. CLIENT SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS 

In 2013, OPIC began collecting client satisfaction data through a voluntary survey clients have the option to complete 

upon submission of their SMQ. While the response rate is too low to consider the results representative of all OPIC 

clients, 85 percent of respondents reported overall satisfaction in working with OPIC and 87 percent report that they 

would likely work with OPIC again. 

The survey contains eight questions that ask clients to rate their satisfaction with OPIC in the following areas: 

 Overall Satisfaction of Working with OPIC 

 Helpfulness 

 Professionalism 

 Timely Response to Questions 

 Clarity of Communications 

 Understanding of Business Needs 

 Reasonable Decision Time 

 Likelihood of Working with OPIC Again 

Of the 334 SMQ respondents, 46 chose to complete the survey in FY13, and their responses therefore cannot be 

considered representative of all OPIC clients. Table 4 below provides the percentage of respondents who reported 

they were satisfied with OPIC in each area. 

Table 4

OPIC Client Satisfaction Survey Results

Overall Satisfaction 85%

Helpfulness ---------------------------------------- 89%

Professionalism ----------------------------------- 89%

Timely Response --------------------------------- 85%

Clarity ---------------------------------------------- 87%

Business Needs ----------------------------------- 81%

Decision Time ------------------------------------ 80%

Likelihood of Working ---------------------------

with OPIC Again

87%
23

Annual Report on Development Impact 

VIII. EXHIBITS. METHODOLOGIES, PROJECTIONS AND OTHER DATA

Exhibit 1: U.S. Employment and Associated Effects of OPIC-Supported Projects ............... 24

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

Year 2014 (Projections) .......................................................................................................... 25

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

Fiscal Year 2014 (Projections)................................................................................................ 26

Exhibit 4: Methodology for Calculating U.S. Employment Effects ....................................... 27

Exhibit 5: OPIC’s Development Matrix ................................................................................. 28

Exhibit 6: OPIC’s Greenhouse Gas Policy and Current Inventory ........................................ 29

Exhibit 7: OPIC Site Monitoring Methodology ..................................................................... 33

Exhibit 8: Site Monitored Projects in FY14 ........................................................................... 35
24

Annual Report on Development Impact 

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

Fiscal Year 2014 (Projections)

(All Dollar Figures are in Thousands)

Number Effect on

Industry of Final Destination of Project Output 1/ U.S. Effect on U.S. Employment 2/ U.S. Trade

Sector Projects Host Country U.S. 3rd Country Procurement 2/ Initial Operating Total Balance 2/

A. Projects with Positive Effects on Employment 3/

Minerals & Energy 4/ 6 $231,130 $0 $0 $237,339 281 21 302 $237,339

Manufacturing 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0

Services 7 $418,345 $0 $0 $70,219 45 54 99 $70,219

Positive Total 13 $649,475 $0 $0 $307,558 326 75 401 $307,558

B. Projects with Neutral Effects on Employment 5/

Agribusiness 3 $2,600 $0 $7,547 $3,2977 0 0 0 $3,297

 

 Minerals &

10 $555,376 $0 $0 $2,013 3 0 3 $2,013

 Energy5/ 

Manufacturing 8 $76,800 $6,932 $9,533 $1,400 2 0 2 ($33,262)

Services 52 $401,403 $0 $6,008 $1,666 2 1 3 $1,666

Neutral Total 73 $1,036,179 $6,932 $23,088 $8,377 7 1 8 ($26,286)

C. Projects with Negative Effects on Employment 6/

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

FY Total 86 $1,685,654 $6,933 $23,088 $315,935 332 76 409 $281,272

* Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195), Sec. 240A (2) (b)

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

2/ Total effect during first 5 years of project operation

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

4/ 100% percent of the energy projects OPIC committed to in FY14 were renewable energy projects 

5/ 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).

6/ There were no projects supported in FY14 that projected the loss of any U.S. employment.
25

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Exhibit 2: Destination of Sales to Third Party1/ Markets of OPIC-Supported 

Projects Fiscal Year 2014 (Projections)

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

Sector Destination Annual Sales ($)

Agribusiness

Belgium $270,000

Europe Regional $6,266,924

People Republic of China $1,010,000

Sector Total $7,546,924

Manufacturing

Europe Regional $1,344,928

Germany $500,000

El Salvador $1,000,000

Guatemala $6,000,000

Worldwide $688,000

Sector Total $9,532,928

Services

Europe Regional $182,400

Kyrgyz Republic $625,000

Middle East Regional $303,750

Tajikistan $125,000

Worldwide $4,771,699

Sector Total $6,007,849

TOTAL SALES FOR PROJECTS WITH NEUTRAL U.S. EFFECTS $23,087,701

Fiscal Year TOTAL $23,087,701

 

1/

* Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195), Sec. 240A (2) (A)

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

2/ The 86 OPIC-supported projects in FY14 were projected to have neutral effect on U.S. employment as defined by 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 FY14 

projected to result in the loss of any U.S. jobs
26

Annual Report on Development Impact 

 

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

OPIC-Supported Projects Fiscal Year 2014 (Projections) 

In FY14, OPIC supported 86 new projects in 39 countries and 5 regions around the world. 

Of those 86 projects, 13 had a positive impact on U.S. jobs: 1/ 

 6 in minerals & energy: Chile, Israel, Jamaica, Mexico and Pakistan 

 7 in the services sector: Angola, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Kyrgyz Republic, Pakistan and 

Russia 

Of those 86 projects, 73 had a neutral impact on U.S. jobs: 2/

 3 in the agricultural sector: Afghanistan, Morocco and Senegal 

 10 in the minerals & energy sector: Chile, Colombia, India, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Nigeria, 

Pakistan and Peru 

 8 in manufacturing: Brazil, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Georgia, Honduras, Romania 

and Sierra Leone 

 52 in the service sector: Africa Regional, All OPIC eligible countries, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Bulgaria, 

Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Europe Regional, Georgia, Ghana, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, 

Malawi, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Poland, Romania, Turkey, South 

Africa, West Bank, Zambia and Zimbabwe 

o Of these 52 projects, 31 were financial services, 7 pertained to construction, 

one pertains to communication, 2 with tourism and 11 with other services. 

Regional breakdown:

 20 in Sub-Saharan Africa (one with positive U.S. job impacts and 19 with neutral U.S. 

job impacts) 

 18 in Europe & Eurasia (2 with positive U.S. job impacts and 16 with neutral U.S. job impacts) 

 22 in Latin America & Caribbean (7 with positive U.S. job impacts and 15 with neutral U.S. job 

impacts) 

 10 in Asia & Pacific (2 with positive U.S. job impacts and 8 with neutral U.S. job impacts) 

 12 in Middle East and North Africa (One with positive U.S. job impacts and 11 with neutral U.S. 

job impacts) 

 4 in multiple regions ( 4 with neutral U.S. job impacts) 

1/

* Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195), Sec. 240A (3) (C)

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

years of operations). 

2/ Projects with a U.S. employment effect of two or fewer jobs (10 person years or less of employment during the first resulted in the loss of any U.S. 

jobs. The majority of projects were in the services sector. No projects that OPIC supported in FY14 resulted in the loss of any U.S. jobs. 
27

Annual Report on Development Impact 

 

Exhibit 4: Methodology for Calculating U.S. Employment Effects13

Each project seeking OPIC support is individually reviewed to estimate the potential impact on employment 

in the United States. OPIC uses procurement estimates provided by the investor to calculate 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 projected 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. 

OPIC details each type of U.S. good or service expected to be procured for each project and, using industryspecific data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), OPIC calculates the employment effect in that 

industrial sector as well as in the sectors that supply necessary components or inputs. By using this standard 

employment effect methodology, OPIC is able to ascertain employment generation with greater precision than 

if it used an 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 projected procurement of goods and 

services by OPIC-supported projects. Finally, to confirm employment effect 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 of this report. 

 

13 These data are not always able to distinguish between newly created jobs and those that are maintained; full-time, part-time and 

seasonal jobs are treated the same. There is also a lag in updated data from BLS and some industries are difficult to classify into 

NAICS codes. 
28

Annual Report on Development Impact 

 

Exhibit 5: OPIC’s Development Matrix 

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

those that improve upon the host country’s physical and financial infrastructure, and provide the basic human 

necessities of shelter, food, water and health care. Since its inception in 1971, OPIC has collected direct and 

indirect developmental impact data for each of its projects. In 2004, OPIC implemented a development impact 

assessment tool – the Developmental Impact Matrix – enabling OPIC to compare projects across the portfolio 

and over time. A new model was developed in 2007 that was specifically tailored to assess the development 

impacts of financial intermediary projects. These matrices incorporated between 27 and 34 developmental 

indicators that were used to evaluate and score every proposed project. 

In October 2012, OPIC revised its Development Impact Matrices with the goal of simplifying the indicators 

for more accurate and relevant data collection. The new matrices are also more harmonized with the 

developmental impact assessment tools used by other development finance institutions. As before, OPIC has 

two matrices—one tailored for financial services projects and the other for all other projects. Both matrices 

are comprised of the following five broad categories that measure a project’s developmental impact, regardless 

of the project’s industry sector or the host country’s level of development:

 

 Development Reach, which measures a project’s impact on basic infrastructure and/or its potential 

benefits to the poor and other underserved populations. For projects involving financial services, 

this factor measures the extent to which underdeveloped areas or underserved, poor populations will 

be targeted by the financial institution. 

 Environmental and Community Benefits, which assesses a project’s improvement of the environment 

and philanthropic activities that benefit the local community. 

 Job Creation and Human Capacity Building, which includes the number of new jobs to be created as 

well as training and employee benefits that go beyond local law. 

 Host Country Macroeconomic or Financial Benefits, which measures local procurement and fiscal 

and foreign exchange impacts. For projects involving financial services, this factor measures the 

amount of funds to be disbursed, as well as the impact on micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, 

entrepreneurship, and home ownership. 

 Demonstration Effects, which includes technology and knowledge transfer, technical assistance to 

suppliers or borrowers, the introduction of new products (including financial products), the project’s 

impact on regulatory and legal reform, and the adoption of internationally-recognized quality or 

performance standards. 

Every proposed project is evaluated and scored based on a scale of 1 to 100. A project must score at least 25 

points on the matrix to be considered developmental and clearly eligible for OPIC support. A score of over 

60 qualifies a project as highly developmental. 

In 2012, OPIC became a signatory to a Memorandum of Understanding with 25 partnering development 

finance institutions (DFIs) to harmonize developmental impact metrics where possible. The goal of this effort 

is to reduce the burden on clients that seek financing from multiple DFIs and to instill best practices in the 

collection and the reporting on OPIC’s developmental impacts. As a result of this effort, OPIC is in the 

process of revising several of its existing indicators to the harmonized language and adopting new sectorspecific indicators that will enable OPIC to better measure its developmental impact in these sectors.
29

Annual Report on Development Impact 

 

Exhibit 6: OPIC’s Greenhouse Gas Policy and Current Inventory

OPIC estimates the GHG emissions for all projects that have the potential to emit (PTE) more than 25,000 

tons per year (tpy) of CO2e equivalent. These projects are divided into three tiers. Tier A projects are fossil 

fuel-fired power generation projects that emit more than 100,000 tpy of CO2e. Tier B projects are projects in 

the oil & gas, mining, transportation, manufacturing, construction, or other sectors which have a PTE of more 

than 100,000 tpy CO2e. Tier C projects are those projects that have a PTE of less than 100,000 tpy CO2e, but 

more than 25,000 tpy CO2e. Annual independent GHG audit reports for projects that are expected to emit 

more than 25,000 tons of CO2e are available at www.opic.gov. 

In order to account for GHG emissions from active projects in OPIC’s portfolio that emit less than 25,000 

tons of CO2e, OPIC incorporates a buffer into its estimate for total emissions from active OPIC projects. The 

sum of Tier C emissions and the buffer equals 5% of the total emissions from OPIC projects emitting more 

than 100,000 short tons of CO2e per year14. In the FY14 inventory (i.e., emissions during calendar year 2013 

from projects in OPIC’s active portfolio as of 9/30/2014), Tier C emissions and the buffer for additional 

sources amounted to 2.1 and 2.9 percent respectively. This methodology to account for such sources is 

consistent with the GHG accounting methodology of The Climate Registry.15 

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 estimate methodologies provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Following the completion of an independent GHG audit of the FY14 emissions, OPIC provided investors the 

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

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

 

14 Prior to the FY10 GHG analysis, OPIC estimated emissions from projects that had the potential to emit more than 100,000 tons per 

year (tpy) of CO2e (i.e., Tier A and Tier B projects). To account for GHG emissions from projects in OPIC’s portfolio that were 

estimated to have generated less than 100,000 tpy of CO2e, OPIC added a 5% buffer to the estimated total emissions from projects 

emitting more than 100,000 tpy of CO2e. Starting with the FY11 GHG analysis, OPIC lowered the minimum reporting threshold to 

include projects that emit between 25,000 and 100,000 tpy CO2e (i.e., Tier C projects). To maintain a consistent methodology, since 

FY10, the buffer has been reduced such that the buffer plus the Tier C emissions equals 5% of the total emissions from OPIC projects 

emitting more than 100,000 tpy of CO2e.

15 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. 
 

30

Annual Report on Development Impact 

 

OPIC GHG Emissions Inventory Estimate by Project 

Tier A Project Emissions (Short Tons CO2e)

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

Project Name Location Maximum 

PTE [1]

CY2007 

Emissions 

Baseline

CY2008 

Emissions

CY2009 

Emissions

CY2010 

Emissions

CY2011 

Emissions

CY2012 

Emissions

CY2013 

Emissions

Adapazari Elektrik Uretim Turkey 2,706,499 2,106,754 2,106,754 2,441,657 2,426,053 2,309,241 Not Active Not Active

AES Jordan [2] Jordan 1,545,173 N/A 590,940 1,318,130 1,434,569 1,184,010 936,400 1,514,054

AES Nigeria Nigeria 1,603,307 1,166,398 1,341,157 988,271 949,754 949,754 949,754 Not Active

Contour Global - Togo Togo 587,305 Not Active Not Active Not Active Below 

Threshold 46,561 130,773 161,830

Doga Enerji Turkey 816,057 740,762 740,762 672,014 655,981 Not Active Not Active Not Active

Gaza Private Generating PLC Gaza 481,485 293,804 303,535 325,926 228,627 405,262 Below Threshold 161,215

Gebze Elektrik Uretim Turkey 5,412,998 4,121,923 4,121,923 4,794,979 4,833,330 4,535,511 Not Active Not Active

Grenada Electricity Services (WRB) Grenada 105,715 114,571 121,156 141,127 135,237 134,371 131,206 130,221

Habibullah Coastal Power Pakistan 487,658 447,880 447,880 Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active

Isagen SA Columbia 687,835 203,010 Below 

Threshold 300,706 305,181 305,181 305,181 775,357

Izmir Elektrik Uretim Turkey 5,412,998 4,694,380 4,694,380 4,300,376 4,739,787 4,824,511 Not Active Not Active

Jorf Lasfar Energy Morocco 14,268,496 14,268,496 Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active

NEPC Consortium Power Bangladesh 383,159 245,795 343,581 255,734 297,068 297,068 Not Active Not Active

Paiton Energy Indonesia 7,938,380 9,553,044 9,553,044 9,624,125 9,854,076 10,045,869 Not Active Not Active

Pakistan Water & Power Authority [3] Pakistan 522,490 522,490 522,490 283,937 283,937 Not Active Not Active Not Active

Termovalle SCA [4] Colombia 714,070 Below Threshold Below 

Threshold 223,983 223,983 Below Threshold Not Active Not Active

Trakya Elektrik Uretim Turkey 1,818,912 1,747,956 Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active

[1] Maximum potential to emit (PTE) was calculated on the basis of a projects maximum operating capacity. When maximum operating capacity could not be determined, the maximum PTE was set 

equal to the highest annual emission level assessed in this or prior OPIC GHG inventories. 

[2] Sharp emission increase due to ramped-up energy production from 10,103,603 in 2008 to 22,536,748 MMBtu in 2009. 

[3] 2009 emissions are significantly lower due to fewer reported operating hours. 

[4] 2009 emissions are significantly higher due to increased reported operating hours
 

31

Annual Report on Development Impact 

 

Tier B Project Emissions (Short Tons CO2e)

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

Project Name Location Maximum 

PTE [1]

CY2007 Emissions 

Baseline

CY2008 

Emissions

CY2009 

Emissions

CY2010 

Emissions

CY2011 

Emissions

CY2012 

Emissions

CY2012 

Emissions

Accroven SRL Venezuela 998,677 998,677 445,832 Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active

Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Azerbaijan 699,034 707,672 707,672 787,577 723,214 671,605 584,200 Not Active

E.P. Interoil [5] Papua New 

Guinea 802,469 392,296 103,247 79,709 75,928 74,985 Not Active Not Active

Equate Petrochemical Kuwait 720,573 720,573 680,311 Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active

Foxtrot International [2] Cote 

d'Ivoire 270,804 104,484 104,484 104,484 Below Threshold 27,746 Not Active Not Active

Lukoil RPK Vysotsk [3] [5] Russia 107,184 70,767 70,767 76,339 97,117 91,143 92,696 95,070

Natural Gas Liquids II Financing Nigeria 390,806 244,048 244,048 Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active

Pannonia Ethanol Hungary 110,543 Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active 64,244 93,251

Various Egypt Subsidiaries 

(Apache) [4] Egypt 2,429,543 3,071,932 3,244,189 3,294,654 3,465,842 4,438,554 4,178,447 4,056,437

West Africa Gas Pipeline [5] Ghana 244,728 Not Active Not Active 244,728 91,451 86,617 86,617 86,617

Wilpro Energy Services 

(El Furrial) Venezuela 289,106 289,106 289,106 Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active

Wilpro Energy Services (Pigap) Venezuela 507,923 571,090 571,090 Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active Not Active

[1] Maximum PTE was calculated on the basis of a projects maximum operating capacity. When maximum operating capacity could not be determined, the maximum PTE was set equal to the highest 

annual emission level assessed in this or prior OPIC GHG inventories. 

[2] In 2010, Foxtrot operated for a minimal period of time and thus had corresponding GHG emissions below the established threshold. 

[3] Lukoil has the Potential-to-Emit over 100,000 tons CO2e annually, although emissions have been reported below this level to date. 

[4] In 2007 and 2008, Apache reported their emissions in relation to their equity share of the project (49%). OPIC accounts 100% of a project's emissions regardless of equity share. As a result, emissions 

data for 2007 and 2008 will more than double in comparison to the project sponsor reported data in order to calibrate the inventory according to OPIC standards. 

[5] In some years, project emissions have been estimated to be less than 100,000 short tons but the project has the Potential-to-Emit greater than 100,000 short tons annually. 
*

*Information has temporarily been redacted, including to protect the safety of implementing partners.
33

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Exhibit 7: OPIC Site Monitoring Methodology 

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 analysis of information 

submitted annually by investors in the form of an online Self-Monitoring Questionnaire (SMQ). Since 1993, OPIC 

has required SMQs of all investors per the OPIC finance agreement or insurance contract. 

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

from one or more disciplines will site monitor. The projects selected for site monitoring include: (1) a random sample 

of projects that have been active for five or more years and have not been monitored previously; (2) projects that are 

sensitive with respect to U.S. economic effects, labor or environment, social, health and safety issues; and (3) projects 

that fit in logistically with randomly selected or sensitive projects. 

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 auditors, often recruited locally with a reputation 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 potential violations thoroughly. 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, 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 environmental 

and social risk. Environmental and social risks 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, and interviews with the local community, where relevant. 

U.S. Economic Impact 

OPIC monitors projects for their actual impact on the U.S. economy, including the U.S. 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 restrictions put forward in the OPIC loan agreement or insurance contract (e.g. 

restrictions on exporting to the United States. or significant U.S. export markets). 
34

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Development Impact 

Regarding host country development impact, OPIC monitors projects using the same criteria as at the time of project 

approval. Thus, an “apples-to-apples” comparison can be made between original development impact projections 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 are also evaluated and quantified during site monitoring. Finally, the project is re-revaluated using 

actual findings of the same criteria used in the project’s original OPIC review. 
35

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Exhibit 8: Site Monitored Projects in FY2014 

PROJECT NAME LOCATION

AES JORDAN PSC JORDAN

AES LEVANT PSC JORDAN

ALTO MAIPO SPA CHILE

AMANECER SPA CHILE

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF ABUJA NIGERIA

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT LEBANON

AQUARELLA INVESTMENTS 265 - JABULANI VILLAGE SOUTH AFRICA

CAFR-AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL LAGOS NIGERIA

CAIRO AMMAN BANK JORDAN

CHOUS2-JSC BANK CENTERCREDIT KAZAKHSTAN

CHOUS2-JSC HALYK SAVINGS BANK KAZAKHSTAN

CMFI-2-JORDAN MICRO CREDIT COMP(TAMWEELCOM) JORDAN

DIG-SOFIHDES HAITI

DISI WATER PSC JORDAN

FIREFLY INVESTMENTS 230 PTY SOUTH AFRICA

FOUNTAIN SPRINGVILLE ESTATE NIGERIA

GMT HOTELS, LLC GEORGIA

HAITI 360 HAITI

HELIOS TOWERS NIGERIA LTD ("HTN") NIGERIA

INDUSTRIAL DPR FUNDING LTD. GUATEMALA

INTERENERGY HOLDINGS DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE LEBANON

JORDAN-ARAB BANK JORDAN

JORDAN-CAIRO AMMAN BANK JORDAN

JORDAN-CAPITAL BANK OF JORDAN JORDAN

JORDAN-HOUSING BANK FOR TRADE AND FINANCE JORDAN

JORDAN-JORDAN AHLI BANK JORDAN

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. COLOMBIA

JSC PROCREDIT BANK GEORGIA GEORGIA

LAFISE GROUP PANAMA PANAMA

LEBANESE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LEBANON

MEII-2-JORDAN AHLI BANK (SME) WEST BANK

MEII-AL-QUDS BANK FOR DEVELOPMENT & INVEST WEST BANK

MEII-BANK OF PALESTINE WEST BANK

MEII-CAIRO AMMAN BANK WEST BANK

MEII-HOUSING BANK FOR TRADE AND FINANCE WEST BANK

MEII-JORDAN AHLI BANK WEST BANK

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION ("NAPACOR") PHILIPPINES

NCB3-BANK CENTER CREDIT JSC KAZAKHSTAN

PANNONIA ETHANOL HUNGARY

PROPAK AMBALAJ URETIM VE PAZARLAMA A.S. TURKEY

PV SALVADOR CHILE

ROOT CAPITAL INC. COSTA RICA

SAN ANDRES SPA CHILE
36

Annual Report on Development Impact 

 

SANTE GMT PRODUCTS, LLC GEORGIA

SEABOARD OVERSEAS LIMITED HAITI

SKYE - CAPIC SELECT LIMITED NIGERIA

TELIANI VALLEY GEORGIA

TURKIYE GARANTI BANKASI A.S. TURKEY

UNIVERSALB SHA FOLLOW-ON ALBANIA

WENDY’S GEORGIA GEORGIA