Report of the 

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

ANNUAL REPORT 

 ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 

Submitted Pursuant to 

Section 240A of the 

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 

As Amended

August 2017 
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

1 

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

REACHING DEVELOPMENT GOALS ................................................................................................ 5

FISCAL YEAR OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 7

DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ............................................................................................................... 9

SUPPORTING THE U.S. ECONOMY ................................................................................................ 13

ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH & SAFETY ....................................................................................... 20

LABOR AND HUMAN RIGHTS ........................................................................................................ 23

MONITORING OF ACTIVE PROJECTS ........................................................................................... 25

COMPLIANCE WITH OPIC CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS ......................................................... 27

APPENDICES – METHODOLOGIES, PROJECTIONS AND OTHER DATA .......................................... 28

APPENDIX 1: U.S. EMPLOYMENT AND ASSOCIATED EFFECTS .................................................... 29

APPENDIX 2: DESTINATION OF SALES TO THIRD PARTY MARKETS .......................................... 30

APPENDIX 3: U.S. EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS AND PROJECT LOCATION ....................................... 31

APPENDIX 4: METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING U.S. EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS ..................... 32

APPENDIX 5: OPIC’S DEVELOPMENT MATRIX ........................................................................... 33

APPENDIX 6: OPIC’S GREENHOUSE GAS POLICY AND CURRENT INVENTORY ......................... 34

APPENDIX 7: OPIC’S SITE-MONITORING METHODOLOGY ....................................................... 39

APPENDIX 8: PROJECTS SITE-MONITORED IN FY16 .................................................................. 40

APPENDIX 8: PROJECTS SITE-MONITORED IN FY16 (CONT.) ..................................................... 41

APPENDIX 9: PROJECTS SITE-MONITORED FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT IN FY16 ................... 42

APPENDIX 10: PROJECTS MONITORED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL / HUMAN RIGHTS IN FY16 ...... 43

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

3 

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

 OPIC supported a significant number of infrastructure projects in FY16. These included a 33 megawatt (MW) 

thermal power plant and nine renewable energy projects that resulted in people across the regions OPIC serves 

receiving access to reliable, cost-efficient sources of energy 

Support for the U.S. Economy 

In addition to the significant positive benefits of OPIC-supported investment in emerging and developing economies, 

OPIC also has a positive impact on the U.S. economy. Projects committed between 2014 and 2016 are expected to 

support almost 5,000 U.S. jobs over the next five years. This is based on the procurement of an estimated $700 million 

in goods and services from the United States. 

Furthermore, U.S. small businesses partnered in 78% of the new OPIC-supported projects in FY16. OPIC-supported 

projects offer opportunities for U.S. companies to operate in new markets or extend their presence in areas with 

economic growth potential. In regions where U.S. companies are facing significant European and Chinese 

competition, OPIC support is critical to their ability to win deals. In addition, the presence of a U.S. sponsor or investor 

makes the procurement of U.S. goods and services far more likely. 

Environment, Social, Labor, and Human Rights Impact 

OPIC-supported projects must meet international best practices for environmental and social sustainability, treatment 

of workers, and respect for human rights. OPIC reviews each project to identify potential adverse impacts and if 

necessary, develop strategies to mitigate those impacts. Five of the 80 new projects that OPIC committed to support 

in FY16 were considered “Category A” due to heightened environmental and/or social risks. Two of the 80 projects 

were designated “Special Consideration” because of their potential for heightened labor risks. Projects with either of 

these classifications require additional due diligence and monitoring. 

Initiatives 

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

monitoring and reporting. These include: 

The Launching of the Development Outcomes Initiative: 

 OPIC projects are currently assessed before they receive our support and monitored once they are operational. 

OPIC has developed a new initiative designed to serve as a third level of evaluation for OPIC-supported projects. 

The Development Outcomes program focuses on a select group of projects each year that are nearing the end of 

OPIC support with the goal of examining the broader impacts of the project. 

 Potential impacts assessed may include those on the borrower/project, employees and their families, the local 

community, associated businesses, suppliers, customers, competitors, local and federal governments as well as 

the regional and national economies. 

 OPIC will also assess U.S. effects including impacts on U.S. companies providing goods and services to the 

project and the extent to which the project creates new markets for U.S. goods and services. 

 Over time this initiative should allow OPIC to determine whether certain types of projects or other factors are 

more likely to lead to stronger developmental effects or positive U.S. impacts. 

 Projects to be evaluated under the Development Outcomes program in FY17 include: 

o Mariscal Sucre Airport in Quito Ecuador (Corporación Quiport S.A.)

o OPIC Supported investment fund (Siraj Palestine Fund I) and a not-for-profit Loan Guarantee Facility 

(Middle East Investment Initiative) in the West Bank 

o Alistair James Logistics and Shipping Company in Tanzania 
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

4 

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

 Focusing on Data Quality and Transparency in Reporting: 

 OPIC has developed a user-friendly and more comprehensive downloadable spreadsheet that provides easy access 

to OPIC development and financial information available on the OPIC website. 

 OPIC has streamlined, automated, and improved several internal data reports. This will improve efficiency and 

make it easier to respond to information requests effectively. The data used in the preparation of the Annual 

Report on Development Impact, the selection of OPIC’s annual monitoring trips, and responses to information 

requests from Congress, OECD and other entities. 

Environmental and Social Policy Statement:

OPIC’s Environmental and Social Policy Statement (ESPS) provides guidance to investors on achieving 

environmentally and socially-sustainable projects. OPIC initiated the process of revising the ESPS in August 2015. 

Over the course of FY16, OPIC conducted a series of stakeholder meetings with businesses, NGO’s, and government 

agencies. A draft of the ESPS was posted for public comment in September 2016 and OPIC published management 

responses to the comments received. The new ESPS became effective on January 13, 2017.

Key revisions made to the ESPS are as follows:

 Incorporating human rights risks more systematically into OPIC's social assessment process. Those projects 

with the potential for significant social impacts may be designated as Special Consideration.

 Revising the greenhouse gas (GHG) policy to more appropriately account for the emissions reduction 

achieved through retrofitting power plants and fuel switching.

 Updating policies to employ “risk-based” project selection for site monitoring.

 Placing a greater emphasis on using a “risk-based” approach to screen sub-projects originated by financial 

intermediaries such as investment funds or banks.
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

5 

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

REACHING DEVELOPMENT GOALS 

More than one billion people currently live on less than $1.25 per day.2 OPIC works with the private sector to mobilize 

the capital needed to build critical infrastructure, improve access to health and education resources, develop reliable 

food sources and create sustainable enterprises. 

Supporting Development in Less-Developed Countries 

Of the 80 new projects committed in FY16, 75% were located in low and middle-income countries. These new projects 

are expected to create over 10,000 jobs and support $4.5 billion in the local procurement of goods and services. When 

OPIC supports projects in higher income countries3, projects often target under-served populations or specific areas 

where income levels are lower. Many financial services sector projects in higher income countries focus on lending 

to micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs4), reaching women or rural populations, supporting affordable 

housing, or developing off-grid power solutions. 

Improving Energy Infrastructure 

In FY16, OPIC supported ten power projects, including a 33-megawatt thermal power plant and nine renewable energy 

projects. The latter are expected to generate a total of 373 megawatts of power. In FY16, OPIC committed three new 

projects to support off-grid solar solutions in Sub-Saharan Africa enabling people in remote villages to use home solar 

kits to access electricity. Projects like these supported by OPIC will create the reliable, cost-effective energy needed 

to spur economic growth in cities and rural areas around the world. 

 

2

 https://www globalgiving org/sdg/no-poverty/ 

3

 Section 231 of the Foreign Assistance Act defines low-income countries as those with per capita GNP of $984 or less in 1986 dollars Middle-income countries are 

those with per capita GNP of $985 to $4,268 in 1986 dollars High-income countries are those with a per capita GNP above $4,268 in 1986 dollars.

4

 OPIC Medium Enterprise projects may not exceed more than two of the following: 300 employees, $15 million in total assets, or $15 million in total annual sales 


OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

8 

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

* Includes financial credit intermediation, contracts, and transaction services. 

In FY16, the Financial Services sector accounted for the largest share of OPIC projects at 55 percent. Over 60 percent 

of the Financial Services projects support microfinance institutions (MFIs) and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). 
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

9 

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS

OPIC seeks to support sustainable development and capital mobilization through its loan, loan guaranty, and political 

risk insurance programs. Private and public investment, along with domestic resource mobilization, play a critical role 

in supporting sustainable development. OPIC is pivotal in catalyzing the private sector investment that promotes 

economic development and reduces poverty. OPIC-supported projects create multiple benefits including: 

 The creation of local jobs that tend to pay above 

prevailing local wages and include important worker 

rights safeguards 

 Opportunities to transfer management skills and 

technology, which over time create a skilled workforce 

 The generation of tax revenues that allow local 

governments to dedicate additional capital for public 

investment 

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) 

Africa has the world’s largest population of individuals 

under 30 and is expected to have 50% of the world’s labor 

force by 2050.6 Forty-one percent of the African 

population lives in extreme poverty.7 This poverty is both 

a cause and an effect of the political instability found in the 

region. Investments by OPIC contribute to the stability of 

the region by creating jobs, fostering local 

entrepreneurship, and promoting sustainable economic 

growth.

Reflecting the opportunity for development, Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for over one-third of all FY16 projects, 

with investments in energy, education, agriculture, housing, manufacturing, and telecommunications. 

 

6 http://www unesco org/new/en/unesco/events/prizes-and-celebrations/celebrations/international-days/world-radio-day-2013/statistics-on-youth/; 

 https://qz com/547929/africa-has-the-worlds-fastest-growing-labor-force-but-needs-jobs-growth-to-catch-up/

7 http://datatopics worldbank org/sdgatlas/SDG-01-no-poverty html

Employment Impact

OPIC’s clients reported that nearly half of the 

10,000 jobs supported in host countries belong to 

women. In both the financial and non-financial 

sectors, more than 60% of the roles are managerial 

or professional / technical positions.

FY16 Impact in Sub-Saharan Africa

 Over 1,200 new jobs, 72% of 

which are managerial or technical

 $986 million in local procurement 

 $261 million in local tax revenue 

generation, annually
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

10

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

OPIC Support for Women Entrepreneurs 

Investing in women, significantly aids economic 

development. Research demonstrates that 

investments in women-owned businesses and 

improved female participation in the labor force 

often lead to stronger economic and social impacts.

In addition to the economic impact of their own 

enterprises, women often reinvest in activities that 

can accelerate economic development in their local 

communities: education for their children, support 

for family members who start small businesses, and 

investments in healthcare.

8

 

8

 http://www cgap org/blog/gender-geography-women-owned-smes-middle-east 

FY16 Impact on Women

 Over 200,000 microfinance/SME loans for 

women

 Over 11,000 consumer loans for women 

 Nearly 100,000 insurance contracts for women

 Over 900 equipment leasing contracts for 

women

 54 equity investments for women
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

11

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

OPIC’s Investments in Infrastructure 

Infrastructure investments are critical to spurring job creation and 

sustainable growth. Infrastructure raises productivity by lowering 

the cost of goods through more efficient production, improved 

transportation methods, and better access to utilities such as water 

and power. By 2030, $60 trillion9 in new global infrastructure 

investment will be required to support increasing population needs. 

OPIC continues to support investment in this vital sector. 

In FY16 alone, OPIC committed to 15 new infrastructure projects 

around the world in sectors such as housing, schools, highways, 

hospitals, transportation facilities, and ports. In addition to OPIC’s support, these projects are expected to generate 

nearly $700 million in additional private capital investment. 

10

 

9

 https://www oecd org/daf/inv/investment-policy/Fostering-Investment-in-Infrastructure pdf 

10 http://povertydata worldbank org/poverty/country/BRA 

FY16 Impact in Infrastructure Sector

 Over 4,600 local jobs

 Over $1.8 billion in local 

procurement 

 Nearly $500 million in annual 

local tax revenue generation

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

13 

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

SUPPORTING THE U.S. ECONOMY

OPIC projects committed between 2014 and 2016 are expected to procure $677 million of 

goods and services from U.S. suppliers 

In addition to supporting economic growth and jobs in the host countries, OPIC projects often have a positive impact 

on the U.S. economy. The presence of a U.S. company in a project may encourage the use of more U.S.-made products 

and services or the application of U.S.-compatible technology. 

Many OPIC-supported projects purchase goods or services from U.S. entities, including small businesses that sell 

through middlemen unaware their products are exported to new markets. U.S. companies that are experiencing mature 

markets at home may find new growth opportunities overseas. 

Other projects contribute financial flows back to the United States through loan repayments, returns on investment, 

tax payments, etc. Viewing the projects that have the most significant impacts on the U.S. economy in recent years 

reveals that a project may: 

 Directly or indirectly create opportunities for new or expanded markets for U.S. goods 

 Allow U.S. companies to compete with European or Asian firms 

 Promote U.S. foreign policy and economic goals by ensuring that there is a positive American presence in 

strategically important regions 

The figure below illustrates the potential U.S. impacts of a given project. 

 

 Figure 3 

In order to determine how a project will impact, OPIC receives estimates for projected procurement of goods and 

services and assesses the impact on U.S. jobs. OPIC is often provided with a list of specific companies from which 

the company anticipates procuring goods and services. The impacts can be quite significant for some projects. OPICsupported projects approved in FY16 are expected to lead to $98 million in U.S. procurement over five years. Common 

products and services procured include machinery, medical equipment, engineering, and consulting services. For a 

full list of products and services to be procured for FY16 see Figure 4. 
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

14

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

Figure 4

FY16 Products and Services Procured by State for OPIC Projects Overseas 

(represents 13 states and Washington, D.C.) 

In addition to evaluating positive impacts, OPIC carefully screens potential projects to ensure that no project will have 

a negative effect on the U.S. economy. OPIC does not support projects expected to harm the U.S. economy or result 

in the loss of any U.S. jobs. 


OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

17

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

Figure 5

Quiport International Aiport: U.S. Effects 

U.S. Procurement Suppliers 

The U.S. presence in the Ecuador market as a result of this project was multiplied by the many U.S. companies that 

became associated with the project including airlines, cargo companies, hotels, restaurants, car rental firms, etc. 

Airlines such as Delta, American and Jet Blue were able to expand capacity for existing routes or create new routes 

to Ecuador. Cargo companies such as UPS, Atlas Air and FedEx were able to take advantage of the longest runways 

in South America to ship goods to and from this market. U.S. hotels (Wyndham, Holiday Inn and Marriott) found 

exciting new opportunities to serve airport customers, businessmen and tourists. U.S. restaurants (from Outback and 

TGI Fridays, and Famous Famiglia) were able to showcase their brands and create new Latin American customers. 

Over 15 companies across the United States are already serving this airport directly. Many more companies will 

continue to find new markets in Ecuador as a result of this airport’s development in the future. (See Figure 6)

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

19

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

Small Business Effects 

U.S. small businesses were involved in over three-quarters of new OPIC-supported projects in FY16 

OPIC recognizes the importance of small businesses as a key driver of U.S. economic growth and actively partners 

with such firms to enable their expansion into developing and emerging markets. 

OPIC’s efforts to reach out to U.S. small businesses continued to yield positive results in FY16. OPIC supported 62

new projects that involved U.S. small businesses, 78% of all new projects in FY16: 

 39 U.S. small investment fund managers and financial intermediaries received OPIC investment guarantees 

directly 

 21 U.S. small businesses received direct loans from OPIC 

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

U.S. small businesses benefit directly and indirectly from the procurement of goods and services utilized by OPICsupported projects. In some cases, items made by small U.S. firms become components in larger goods that are sold 

to the projects overseas. Some of those firms may not even be aware that their goods are being exported, yet an OPICsupported project is actually contributing to their bottom line. In other cases, U.S. small businesses are directly selling 

their products or services to the project in the host country. 
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

20

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH & SAFETY 

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. For a project determined to be categorically ineligible,13 OPIC 

immediately informs the applicant to avoid unnecessary effort or expense on their part. 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 present the greatest potential for adverse environmental and/or social impacts, whereas 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 projects or enterprises engaged in activities 

within Categories A, B or C (“Subprojects”). OPIC screens, reviews, and provides prior written consent to Subprojects 

on the basis of potential environmental and social risks. 

OPIC uses a rigorous methodology for calculating potential environmental and social impacts. 

OPIC uses an environmental and social assessment process 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 

 Evaluation or design of associated management and monitoring measures 

Category A Projects 

For FY16, five of the 80 projects OPIC committed to support were screened as Category A, which have the potential 

for significant adverse environmental and/or social impacts without adequate mitigation measures. Given these risks, 

OPIC requires all Category A projects to have a full environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA). 

OPIC’s committed FY16 Category A projects:

 A bauxite mine in Guinea 

 A wind farm in Senegal 

 An oil terminal in Brazil 

 A thermal power plant expansion in Senegal 

 A poultry farm in Zambia 

 

13 Certain categories of projects have potential adverse environmental or social impacts that preclude the project from receiving OPIC support Projects in these 

prohibited categories are listed in Appendix B of OPIC’s Environmental and Social Policy Statement
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

21

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

OPIC’s environmental experts conduct pre-approval site visits for Category A projects and potential projects 

with possible environmental and social sensitivities. 

OPIC support for Category A projects, as well as projects with potential environmental and social concerns require 

lengthy reviews. As part of this process, OPIC environmental officers or consultants conduct on-site due diligence 

prior to commitment of OPIC support to any project screened as Category A. In FY16, OPIC conducted pre-approval 

site visits to six Category A projects in six countries. These include projects committed in FY15 and FY16 or projects 

expected to be committed in FY17: 

 A hydroelectric cascade in Armenia

 A bauxite mine in Guinea

 A thermal power plant expansion in Senegal

 A port project in Ghana



 An oil terminal in Brazil 

Category B and C Projects 

Thirty-four projects in FY16 were screened as Category B, which are likely to have environmental impacts that are 

few in number, generally site-specific, largely reversible, and readily addressed through effective management 

systems. 

Forty-one FY16 projects were screened as Category C. Category C projects are likely to have minimal adverse 

environmental and/or social impacts. 

Project Disclosure 

OPIC publishes information on all Category A projects for public comment. 

In FY16, consistent with OPIC policy, five Category A projects under consideration for OPIC support were disclosed 

on OPIC’s website 60 days prior to action by the OPIC Board, and announced via email to OPIC stakeholders. This 

process gives interested persons and organizations the opportunity to review the ESIAs and comment on the projects’ 

potential environmental and social impacts. Full text versions of ESIAs were available for download directly from 

the OPIC website.14 Public comments were received on three projects. 

Transactions Rejected on Environmental and/or Labor Grounds 

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

upfront. Before formal applications are submitted, OPIC endeavors to advise clients regarding project plans that could 

be problematic from an environmental or social impact perspective. In some cases, clients are able to modify projects 

to mitigate risks appropriately. In other cases, they may withdraw the request for OPIC support. As a result, OPIC did 

not need to reject any applications for finance or insurance in FY16 on environmental grounds. 

Green House Gas Reporting 

OPIC gathers data on the Green House Gas emissions related to its portfolio. OPIC has committed to: (a) reducing the 

direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from projects in its active portfolio (using the calendar year 2007 direct GHG 

emissions from OPIC’s active portfolio on June 30, 2008 as a baseline), by (i) 30% over a ten-year period and (ii) 

50% over a 15-year period; and (b) increasing investment support to renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. 

“Direct emissions” are defined as the result of the combustion of fuel by OPIC-supported projects. 

14 https://www.opic.gov/doing-business-us/OPIC-policies/environment/documents

*

*Information has temporarily been redacted, including to protect the safety of implementing partners.
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

22

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

Since FY08, the aggregate direct GHG emissions associated with projects in OPIC’s active portfolio decreased by 

approximately 42.08 million short tons of CO2e from 49.77 million short tons of CO2e in FY08 to approximately 7.69 

million short tons in FY16. This represents an 84.5% reduction in portfolio emissions.15

Additional details on the FY16 GHG report are available in Appendix 6. 

15 In the FY14 Annual GHG Report, OPIC corrected its FY08 baseline to remove GHG emissions that were earmarked for the Latin America Power (LP) III Fund In 

FY14, LP III became fully invested without having invested in any projects that were significant GHG sources Therefore, OPIC decided to retroactively remove 

the LP III allocation from the FY08-13 inventories (including the FY08 baseline) 
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

23

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

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 FY16, no additional countries lost their GSP or OPIC benefits on worker rights 

grounds. 

The USTR continues to conduct formal GSP country practice reviews of the following countries on worker rights 

grounds: Georgia, Uzbekistan, Iraq, and Thailand. OPIC will adjust country eligibility status on the basis of USTR’s 

final determination in these countries. In addition, USTR reinstated GSP benefits for Burma, and completed its 

review of Niger and Fiji. With these reviews closed, OPIC continues to be open for new projects in Burma, Niger, 

and Fiji. 

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. In FY16, none of the 

potential projects reviewed were determined to be categorically prohibited on labor-related grounds16, while two of 

the new FY16 projects were classified as “Special Consideration”. This designation requires additional oversight in 

the form of an independent audit, a project site visit, and annual reporting for projects with a heightened potential for 

labor rights violations. Projects with large numbers of contracted workers, including construction workers not directly 

employed by the project, may qualify for Special Consideration. In FY16, two hospitals that required large numbers 

of contract workers during a complex construction phase were designated as special consideration. 

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

 Evaluation or design of associated management and monitoring measures

16 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.

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

25

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

MONITORING OF ACTIVE PROJECTS

OPIC monitors its portfolio by site-monitoring active projects and requiring annual self-monitoring questionnaires 

(SMQs) from OPIC-supported projects. Active OPIC-supported projects are required to annually report on host 

country development impact and on the relevant environmental, social, labor, and health and safety issues through the 

SMQ. The SMQ also provides guidance on the U.S. economic impact of OPIC’s active projects. In FY16, the SMQ 

response rate was 81%. The questionnaire was revised to clarify the language and improve the accuracy of the 

responses received in FY16. 

Site-Monitoring 

Site visits are an integral part of OPIC’s monitoring process. They allow staff to ensure compliance with project loan 

covenants and to understand factors that lead to a successful projects. Projects that are site-monitored include those 

randomly selected from OPIC’s active portfolio, as well as those designated as sensitive given their potential impact 

on the U.S. economy, labor rights, human rights, the environment, or local communities. 

In FY16, OPIC site-monitored 45 projects. Figures below provide a breakdown of the sectors, products, and locations 

of these projects. See Appendix 8 for a full list of projects monitored and their corresponding locations. 

2%

2%

2%

4%

4%

9%

9%

11%

11%

16%

29%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction

Transportation and Warehousing

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

Accommodation and Food Services

Other Services

Manufacturing

Finance and Insurance

Healthcare and Education

Construction

Utilities

Figure 7

FY16 Site Monitoring by Sector 

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

27

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

COMPLIANCE WITH OPIC CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS

Ensuring compliance with OPIC policy conditions and covenants is a critical aspect of OPIC’s monitoring programs. 

The following describes the compliance-related findings of OPIC’s FY16 site monitoring.

 U.S. economic effects: 100% of projects monitored by the Economic Impact Team were found to be in 

compliance with OPIC conditions and covenants related that ensure no harm to the U.S. economy and no loss of 

U.S. jobs. 

 Environmental: The Environmental group focused on projects with the greatest environmental and social risks. 

The environmental group monitored 31 projects in FY16. Five of these projects were Category A. 24 were 

Category B projects. One Category C project was monitored in FY16. 

o During site monitoring, 27 projects were found to be in full compliance with OPIC covenants and 

conditions pertaining to environmental and social considerations. 

o Of the four projects not found to be in full compliance with OPIC covenants and conditions pertaining 

to environmental and social considerations: 

 One project had missed milestones in the Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP) 

prepared by the OPIC-supported investment fund 

 One project had not developed an Environmental and Social Policy Statement, and had 

inadequate secondary containment at several small diesel storage tanks 

 One project had inadequate occupational health and safety measures in place and failed to notify 

OPIC of an accident 

 One project failed to provide and comply with environmental and social reports and plans 

o Internal OPIC non-compliance procedures were followed in all four cases 

 Social Assessment: Social assessment monitoring activities focused on 24 projects with the potential for greatest 

labor risk. 

o During site monitoring, 23 of the 24 projects were found to be fully in compliance with OPIC covenants 

regarding labor conditions. For 4 projects in compliance, OPIC analysts communicated 

recommendations for improvements to the project’s labor performance, primarily in regard to managing 

or monitoring the labor performance of contractors. 

o The one site-monitored project that was not fully in compliance with OPIC covenants and the IFC 

Performance Standards did not have sufficient evidence of appropriate human resources management, 

including employment contract agreements and employee grievance management. OPIC informed the 

project sponsor of the deficiency and required implementation of corrective actions to bring the project 

into compliance. 

OPIC also requires clients to self-report regarding policy compliance through 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 OPIC conditions related to environment, health and workers’ 

safety. Three projects reported that they were not compliant with OPIC conditions related to environment, health 

and workers’ safety. All projects provided explanations for non-compliance and submitted information 

describing the steps they are taking to remedy the compliance. OPIC is monitoring the non-compliant projects on 

an ongoing basis. 

 99% of SMQ respondents reported compliance with local or host country environmental, health, and safety 

laws. Two projects reported violations and provided explanations and a course of remediation.
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

28

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

APPENDICES – METHODOLOGIES, PROJECTIONS AND OTHER DATA

APPENDIX 1: U.S. EMPLOYMENT AND ASSOCIATED EFFECTS .................................................... 29

APPENDIX 2: DESTINATION OF SALES TO THIRD PARTY MARKETS .......................................... 30

APPENDIX 3: U.S. EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS AND PROJECT LOCATION ....................................... 31

APPENDIX 4: METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING U.S. EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS ..................... 32

APPENDIX 5: OPIC’S DEVELOPMENT MATRIX ........................................................................... 33

APPENDIX 6: OPIC’S GREENHOUSE GAS POLICY AND CURRENT INVENTORY ......................... 34

APPENDIX 7: OPIC’S SITE-MONITORING METHODOLOGY ....................................................... 39

APPENDIX 8: PROJECTS SITE-MONITORED IN FY16 .................................................................. 40

APPENDIX 8: PROJECTS SITE-MONITORED IN FY16 (CONT.) ..................................................... 41

APPENDIX 9: PROJECTS SITE-MONITORED FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT IN FY16 ................... 42

APPENDIX 10: PROJECTS MONITORED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL / HUMAN RIGHTS IN FY16 ...... 43


OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

31

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

Appendix 3: U.S. Employment Effects and Project Location 

In FY16, OPIC supported 80 new projects in 30 countries and five regions. These 80 projects include two projects 

located in multiple regions.* 

Of the 80 new projects committed in FY16, seven expect to have positive impact on U.S. jobs: 

 Four in infrastructure: Brazil, Nigeria, and Turkey 

 One in manufacturing: Egypt 

 Two in utilities: Guinea and Senegal 

Of the 80 new projects committed in FY16, seventy-three expect to have neutral impact on U.S. jobs: 

 Three in agriculture: Namibia, Zambia, and Europe & Eurasia regional 

 Forty-four in finance: Armenia, Cambodia, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, India, Indonesia, Iraq, 

Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, 

Vietnam, West Bank & Gaza, Zimbabwe, and Africa, Asia, Europe & Eurasia regional 

 Eleven in infrastructure: Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, South Africa 

 Three in information technology: India, Kenya, West Bank & Gaza 

 Three in manufacturing: India and Kenya 

 Two in services: Armenia and Ukraine 

 Seven in utilities: India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, and Tanzania 

Of the 80 new projects committed in FY16, zero expect to have negative impact on U.S. jobs. 

The 80 new projects committed in FY16 were in the following geographic regions: 

 Twenty-five in Sub-Saharan Africa: three with positive U.S. job impact and twenty-two with neutral U.S. job 

impact 

 Nineteen in Latin America: one with positive U.S. job impact and eighteen with neutral U.S. job impact 

 Fourteen in Asia: all with neutral U.S. job impact 

 Twelve in the Middle East & North Africa: one with positive U.S. job impact and eleven with neutral U.S. job 

impact 

 Eight in Europe & Eurasia: two with positive U.S. job impact and six with neutral U.S. job impact 

 Two in multiple regions: both with neutral U.S. job impact 

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

Appendix notes:

 - "Positive" effect on U S employment includes projects with more than two jobs (greater than ten person-years of employment during the first five years 

of project operation) 

- "Neutral" effect on U S employment includes projects with two or fewer jobs (ten person-years or fewer of employment during the first five years of 

project operation) 

- In FY16, eighty new OPIC-supported projects were classified using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) The NAICS categories 

were distilled into the categories shown above 

- No projects supported in FY16 project the loss of U S employment
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

32

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

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

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 figure is generated by estimating a project’s initial procurement, as well as its five-year 

operational procurement of goods and services. OPIC considers both the direct and indirect employment 

necessary to produce those goods and services. Therefore, 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), 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 anticipated 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 OPIC’s involvement with the project. OPIC’s 

monitoring is described in further detail in the Monitoring section of this report. 
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

33

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

Appendix 5: OPIC’s Development Matrix 

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 direct benefits of these projects are clear from the 

start, these projects often produce indirect benefits including associated job creation, increased host country 

tax revenue and the related procurement of local goods and services. 

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. OPIC scores projects using 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: 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 populations will be targeted by 

the financial institution. 

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

any philanthropic activities that benefit the local community. 

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

as training and employee benefits that go beyond local legal requirements. 

 Host Country Macroeconomic or Financial Benefits: 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: 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. 
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

34

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

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

OPIC reports GHG emissions from all projects that have “significant” direct emissions, currently defined as 

more than 25,000 short tons per year (tpy) of CO2e. In FY09 and FY10, the threshold for “significant” direct 

emissions was 100,000 short tons of CO2e. The 25,000 tpy CO2e threshold was selected to be consistent with 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s threshold criteria for significant GHG emissions.18 

 

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 Potential To Emit (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. 

To account for emissions from non-reportable projects (i.e., projects below the current “significance” 

threshold for reporting of 25,000 tpy CO2e), OPIC includes a GHG “buffer” to the total emissions from 

reportable projects (i.e., projects with direct emissions above 25,000 tpy CO2e). OPIC has set the buffer equal 

to 5% of the total emissions from reportable projects.19 By accounting for these sources, OPIC is consistent 

with the GHG accounting methodology of The Climate Registry.20 

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 FY16 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. 

 

18 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s threshold criterion for significant GHG emissions was set at 25,000 metric tons per 

year. To maintain consistency with units, OPIC uses 25,000 short tons, which is conservative – since 25,000 metric tons converted to 

short tons would equal a reporting threshold of approximately 27,500 short tons. 

19 In FY 2009 and FY 2010, OPIC calculated the buffer as 5% of total emissions from reportable projects (i.e., projects emitting more 

than the significance threshold at the time of 100,000 tpy CO2e). 

For FY 2010 – FY 2014, OPIC calculated the buffer so that the buffer plus the estimated emissions for projects that emit between 

25,000 and 100,000 short tons of CO2e was equal to 5% of estimated emissions for projects that emit over 100,000 short tons (to 

maintain consistency with the previous buffer calculation). 

Starting in FY 2015, OPIC updated this methodology so that the buffer again represents 5% of the total estimated emissions from 

reportable projects (using the current significance threshold for reporting of 25,000 tpy CO2e). This results in a more conservative 

buffer and simpler calculation. OPIC retroactively updated the buffer and yearly GHG numbers for FY 2010 – FY 2014 in its FY 

2015 GHG report. The updated buffer amounts for these years increased OPIC’s reported emissions by between 0.3% (in FY 2010 

and FY 2012) and 2.3% (in FY 2014). 

20 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. 


*

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

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

39

Annual Report on Development Impact 

Fiscal Year 2016 

Appendix 7: OPIC’s 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. 

Certain areas of worker rights violations may be difficult to identify from a typical project site-monitoring visit. In 

those instances where OPIC determines further investigation is warranted, OPIC may employ trained and certified 

labor auditors to perform a full project audit. Auditors are often recruited locally, and those with a reputation for 

impartiality and credibility among both the labor and business communities are preferred. 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. Relevant entities such as government officials, 

knowledgeable local NGOs, and organized labor groups may also be interviewed. 

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 depend upon several factors including project sensitivity, host country 

context, project-level environmental and social management systems, 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. Interviews with the local community are conducted 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. OPIC ensures that projects do not negatively impact the U.S. economy. This analysis includes verifying levels 

of exports to the U.S. or other countries (if any), calculating the U.S. balance of payments impact, and verifying 

compliance with any restrictions included in the OPIC loan agreement or insurance contract (e.g. restrictions on 

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

Development Impact 

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

approval. Thus, an one-to-one 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 based on the same criteria used in the project’s original OPIC review. OPIC conducted “lessons 

learned” exercises based on these and other findings. 
*

*

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

*

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

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