june 2012 public disclosure authorized investment...

Investment Climate l World Bank Group

In partnership with

Global Investment Promotion Best Practices

GIPB 2012: Eyes on ACP

Investment ClImateJune 2012

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Global Investment PromotIon benchmarkInG

GIPb 2012: eyes on acP

Investment Climate l World Bank Group

In partnership with

© 2012 The World Bank Group 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington D.C., 20433All rights reserved May 2012 Available online at www.wbginvestmentclimate.org The information included in this work, while based on sources that the World Bank Group considers to be reliable, is not guaranteed as to accuracy and does not purport to be complete. The World Bank Group accepts no responsibility for any consequences of the use of such data. The information in this work is not intended to serve as legal advice.

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments of the countries which they represent.

The denominations and geographical names in this publication are used solely for the convenience of the reader and do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Finance Corporation, the World Bank, or other affiliates concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, area, or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its boundaries or national affiliation.

Rights and Permissions

The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The World Bank Group encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.

All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, the World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; telephone 202–522–2422; email: [email protected]

About the Investment Climate Department of the World Bank Group

The Investment Climate Department of the World Bank Group helps governments implement reforms to improve their business environments and encourage and retain investment, thus fostering competitive markets, growth, and job creation. Funding is provided by the World Bank Group (IFC, MIGA, and the World Bank) and over 15 donor partners working through the multidonor FIAS platform).

3

acknowledGmentsThe Investment Climate Department wishes to thank ProInvest and the

Government of Spain for their support in funding GIPB 2012.

GIPB 2012 has been produced by a core team comprising Robert Whyte,

Francisco Javier Alvarez Roca, Valeria Di Fiori, Carlos Griffin and Bin

Zhai.

The Investment Climate Department gratefully acknowledges the

contributions of Stephen Fleetwood, DTZ; Douglas Grant, dga Business

Development; Rodolfo Guillioli, Development and Planification Director,

Real Hotels and Resorts; Steen Holck, Vice President of Controlling Hotels

and Resorts, Moevenpick; Mahmud Janmohamed, CEO, Serena Hotels;

Andrew McLachlan, Vice President of Business Development, Africa &

Indian Ocean Islands, The Rezidor Hotel Group; Angelo Stambules,

Senior Vice President, Marriott; Wayne J. Troughton, Chief Executive,

HTI Consulting; Trevor Ward, the W Hospitality Group; Reto Wittwer,

CEO, Kempinsky Hotels; Carolyn L. Cain, Chief Industry Specialist, IFC;

Gabriel España, Senior Investment Officer, IFC; and Shaun Mann, Senior

Investment Policy Officer, Tourism, Investment Climate Department, The

World Bank Group; during a Tourism focus group held in Washington

D.C. in February 2011, which helped develop the tourism project inquiry

used in this study.

We would also like to acknowledge the valuable contributions of Thais

Affonso, Head of Business Intelligence, Syngenta; Bob Maus, Director

of Global Business Strategies, Monsanto; Wessel Pretorius, Business

Development Manager – International, Pannar Seed (Pty) Ltd; Joachim

Schneider, Head of BioScience, Bayer; David Scott, Export Sales Manager,

Higgins; Van Yeutter, Vice President International Business Development,

Cargill; Grahame Dixie, Agribusiness Unit Team Leader, Agriculture &

Rural Department, World Bank; Richard Henry, Chief Industry Specialist,

IFC; and Damien Shiels, Global Product Specialist, Industry Specific

Investment Climate, Investment Climate Department, The World Bank

Group during a subsequent agribusiness focus group held in March 2011

that was critical to the development of the agribusiness project inquiry

used in this study.

A number of CEOs and senior managers of multinational companies and

site selection firms contributed their views on the importance of investor

confidentiality during the site selection process, namely Thais Affonso,

Head of Business Intelligence, Syngenta; Mahmud Janmohamed, CEO of

Serena Hotel Group; Bill Luttrell, Senior Locations Strategist, International

Business Development, Werner Enterprises; Amaya Manrique, Senior

4 GIPb 2012: eyes on acP

Manager at Deloitte–Global Location and Facility Services; Joachim

Schneider, Head of Growth and Strategy at Bayer; and Douglas van den

Berghe, CEO of Investment Consulting Associates (ICA), LocationSelector,

and ICAincentives.

Several colleagues provided helpful feedback during this report’s peer

review process: Virgilio Barco, former CEO of Invest Bogota; Louis T.

Wells, Jr., Herbert F. Johnson Professor of International Management,

Harvard Business School; Paramita Dasgupta, Investment Climate,

South Asia, The World Bank Group; Augusto Lopez Claros, Director,

Global Indicators and Analysis, IFC; Hannah R. Messerli, Private Sector

Development/Tourism, Africa Region, World Bank; Ivan Anton Nimac,

Investment Climate Department, Southeast Europe, The World Bank

Group; Vincent Palmade, Lead Economist, Private and Financial Sector

Development, Africa Region, World Bank; and Ravi Vish, Director and

Chief Economist, MIGA.

We would like to thank Pierre Guislain and Cecilia Sager of the Investment

Climate Department for their tremendous support throughout the process

of preparing GIPB 2012, and Celia Ortega, Economic Affairs Officer,

Investment Promotion Section, Division on Investment and Enterprise,

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, for leading GIPB

until mid-2011. Special thanks to OCO Global and PA Consulting for

managing the field work for this study.

As in previous editions of GIPB, we wish to acknowledge the indispensable

contribution of MIGA, which pioneered the methodology used for this

report in 2006.

5contents

Foreword

chaPter 1: Global resultsWhy Measure IPIs (Again)?

PIs Must Position Themselves During the Economic Recovery

chapter 2: maximizing the Potential of online Investment PromotionACP Web Sites in the Global Context

What is the Pattern of Web Site Performances in GIPB 2012?

Gaps in ACP Web Site Quality, Especially in Key Areas: Content

and Promotional Effectiveness

chapter 3: meeting Investors’ Information needsProject Inquiry Handling in the Global Context

Gaps in Project Inquiry Handling Service

Quick Wins for Effective Investor Project Inquiry Handling

aPPendIxList of Participating National IPIs by Region

contents

9

11

23

33

43

11

12

25

27

27

34

37

39

43


FIGures 1. Top Six Overall ACP IPIs

2. Breakdown of GIPB 2012 Average Results by Region

3. Good Practice IPIs only Emerging in the Caribbean

4. IPIs Perform Weakly Where the Tasks are Most Advanced

5. Best Practice ACP Web sites

6. Breakdown of Web Site Scores by Region

7. Best Practice Web Sites are Emerging

8. The Performance Gap of ACP IPIs’ Web Sites

9. Performance Across the Four Web Site Themes

10. Top ACP IPIs for Inquiry Handling

11. Breakdown of ACP Average Results by Region

12. Project Inquiry Handling Service Needs Work

13. The Performance Gap Between ACP IPIs: Project Inquiry Handling

14. Performance Across the Four Themes of Project Inquiry Handling

boxes 1. #1 with 1 - How Grenada Topped the Ranks of ACP IPIs with One Person Handling Web Site

Maintenance and Inquiry Screening

2. Ever Forward - The Rwanda Development Board’s Slow but Steady March to Good Facilitation

3. Checklist of 14 Steps to Becoming a Top IPI in Investment Facilitation

4. What two things do Mauritius, Jamaica and Fiji have in common as investment locations?

5. No Country Is a Virtual Island

6. The Gambia’s Leap Forward

7. Best ACP Web Site Mix

8. Senegal: Where Every Customer Is Important

9. The Sniper Approach - How Invest Niue Picks Its Investment Opportunities

10. Best ACP Project Inquiry Handling Mix

15

16

20

20

24

25

27

28

28

34

34

36

37

39

17

19

22

24

26

28

30

35

38

40

7contents

table1. Evolution of ACP Sub regional Overall Results

2. Evolution of ACP Subregional Web Sites Results

3. Highest Regional Improvers

4. Best Performers

5. Evolution of ACP Subregional Results for Handling Project Inquiries

6. High Improvers

7. Best Performers

18

26

27

28

35

35

37

9Foreword

Foreword

Global flows of foreign direct investment (FDI) declined severely during the recent economic and financial crisis. As the crisis eased, recovery in world economies spurred a resurgence of FDI, and that in turn reignited competition for investments among host countries.

Especially in emerging markets, governments long have prized FDI as a source of much-needed capital and jobs. But in the 21st century, governments value FDI at least as much – if not more – as a channel of technology and know-how transfer. Policymakers have witnessed how knowledge brought by foreign investors can spill over to local firms, bolster skills in the local workforce, and thus increase the overall competitiveness of their economies. To foster development of intellectual capital as well as businesses and jobs, governments increasingly recognize the importance of cultivating FDI.

To position themselves to compete for FDI, most countries have set up investment promotion intermediaries (IPIs) to provide information on business conditions and opportunities to

potential foreign investors. When IPIs develop relevant, accurate and timely information and make it easily available to potential investors, they reduce the risk perceptions and the transaction cost of investment projects. The Global Investment Promotion Best Practices (GIPB) project examines how IPIs perform when approached by foreign investors during their short-listing process. The GIPB 2012 report, building on data and analysis from past editions, offers the most complete examination yet of how well IPIs accomplish this crucial task of information provision.

Assessing IPIs’ work begs a more fundamental, pragmatic question: Does investment promotion in fact lead to higher FDI? To examine that question, researchers have looked at one practice most IPIs have in common: sector targeting. In their efforts to attract FDI, most PIs target only specific sectors, reasoning that concentrating more intense efforts on a few priority sectors will lead to larger FDI inflows than less intense efforts across all sectors. Thus, if investment promotion works, we would expect


to see countries receive relatively more FDI of the type they actively pursue.

Recent research1 examined information on priority sectors, the timing of FDI targeting activities in a large number of countries and the flows of US FDI. The research showed that targeted sectors did receive more FDI than sectors not targeted; in fact, they received more than twice as much FDI as non-targeted sectors. This finding – that investment promotion is an effective way to increase FDI – should be both instructional and encouraging to IPIs.

Providing business and investment climate information is a crucial component of IPI activities in all economies. But IPIs can gain particular advantage in those settings where investors find it most difficult to obtain reliable information and meet bureaucratic requirements. Research shows, for example, that investment promotion is more effective in economies where English is not an official language, and in economies that are more culturally distant from the investors’ corporate homes. Investment promotion also has more impact in countries with less effective governments, and in economies that erect more barriers to launching a business (such as more time to obtain a construction permit).

In this 2012 edition, GIPB focuses specifically on information provision in two sectors, tourism and agribusiness. This focus should be of particular use to economies that seek or are considering seeking to attract FDI in those sectors.

1 Torfinn Harding and Beata Javorcik (2011) Roll out the Red Carpet and They Will Come: Investment Promotion and FDI In-flows, Economic Journal, forthcoming

More broadly, the feedback GIPB obtains can help IPIs improve their performance across all investment sectors in all economies. And the more IPIs succeed, the more investment-hungry economies, especially in the developing world, may be regarded as viable FDI partners.

Beata Javorcik Reader in Economics University of Oxford

11chapter 1: global results

investors knock on their doors, and how well IPIs meet those investors’ information needs during the site selection process. Three rounds of GIPB surveys, with data gathered over six years, gave researchers detailed readings of IPIs’ performance.

A recent research study using GIPB data2 documents a positive and statistically significant relationship between the average inflow of FDI during the past six years and the average facilitation performance of the national IPI (as measured by GIPB) during the same time period. For example, an economy whose IPI earned a GIPB quality result of 60 percent received on average 25 percent higher FDI inflows than a country whose IPI received a GIPB quality result of 45 percent.

Plainly put: For IPIs and for their economies’ success, facilitation performance matters. As IPIs embrace that truth, GIPB becomes an even more useful tool in their quest to achieve excellence and secure more foreign investment.

2 Beata Javorcik and Torfinn Harding, “Investment Promotion and FDI Inflows: Quality Matters,” World Bank Group (forth-coming)

Why Measure IPIs (Again)?

Every year when they report to their Ministers, IPI CEOs struggle to establish the cause-and-effect that justifies IPIs’ existence: The link between the promotion work they do and the investment flows into their country. To judge IPIs’ performance, governments often balance what they spent for promotional efforts against what they gained in FDI: numbers of projects established, jobs created and dollars invested. The assumption behind this reasoning is that FDI projects come to their economies thanks to the IPI’s efforts.

But the core question remains: Do differences in IPIs’ facilitation performance translate into different levels of FDI inflows? To inform this debate, GIPB gives policymakers a measure of IPIs’ performance by examining one of their most basic investment promotion activities: facilitation of foreign investors. The GIPB survey evaluates how IPIs respond when potential

chaPter 1: Global results


IPIs Must Position Themselves During the Economic Recovery

GIPB 2012 comes at a time when the global economy is at a crossroads between steady recovery and prolonged downturn. Still concerned about what the future holds, many companies that postponed their international expansion plans in the last two or three years remain reluctant to reenter the market. This poses a particular challenge for foreign investments where projects are often long term: a project commissioned in 2012 may not actually be launched until 2013 or later. Similarly, though many projects were cancelled in 2008, because of projects carried over from before the downturn took hold, the real effects of the cancellations weren’t clear until about 12 months later. Eventually, the downturn’s effects on FDI were even larger than the 30-40 percent drop-off foreseen in GIPB 2009. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimated the falls in FDI inflows at 54 percent, in addition to a 77 percent drop in merger and acquisition (M&A) deals for the first half of 20093.

Although the squeeze in FDI projects had negative effects on IPIs, it also had the positive effect of forcing IPIs to refocus their efforts. Gone are the days of megaprojects creating thousands of jobs, without the IPI really having to work to earn the investment. Instead, IPIs have had to chase a smaller pool of available projects, identifying the sectors and subsectors where they truly have a competitive advantage. The FDI slump also drove home the importance of IPIs making their best effort at one critical juncture: During the site selection process, when 92 percent of multinational companies will contact

3 UNCTAD Press Release, 24th June 2009

the IPI in a location they’re considering4.

IPIs that are able to engage effectively with companies (or their consultants) and present a compelling business case – one that sets them above competitor locations – gain first-mover advantage when the companies are ready to invest. Therefore, a key task for IPIs is to be ready to facilitate when investors first make contact. GIPB 2012 provides an insight into how IPIs fulfill that mission within today’s new economic realities.

GIPB Evaluates IPIs’ Capacity to Provide to Investors the Information They Need

Piloted in 2005 by the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), GIPB was commissioned for the first time in 2006 and covered 96 national economies. For GIPB 2009, the number of economies evaluated increased to 181. For GIPB 2012 – which uses the same methodology as previous surveys – the number of economies has expanded to 1895. To evaluate IPIs’ performance, GIPB mirrors the process commonly used by foreign companies: It retains site-selection consultants to assess its investment-location options in both early “long-listing” and later “short-listing” stages.

GIPB provides a customized, confidential evaluation report to each IPI participating in the survey, with insights into their performance and tips for improvement. A copy of the report has been emailed to each IPI CEO and its reporting Ministry; IPIs can request additional copies at [email protected].

4 Development Counsellors International (DCI), July 28, 2008. “A View from Corporate America: Winning Strategies in Eco-nomic Development Marketing”5 Two of the IPIs evaluated, Invest in Brussels and Osloteknopol, are local “proxies” used to represent the national economies of Belgium and Norway in the absence of a national IPI.


IPIs pursue their mission to promote FDI and facilitate the investment process through a range of activities – some proactive (e.g., advertising campaigns and promotional tours) and some reactive (e.g., problem-solving during project construction). Although GIPB 2012 does not cover all the aspects of the IPI role, its findings about how IPIs perform their most critical function, information provision, have broad implications for every aspect of investment promotion activity.

All GIPB results are presented in the form percentages in order to facilitate relative comparisons between results, with 100 percent being the highest possible result. The two components of the facilitation evaluation were:

•• The IPI Web site review (worth 50 percent). Evaluators assessed the quality, appeal and usefulness of the IPI’s online presence from the point of view of a company at the long-listing stage of the investment process.

•• Two simulated investment projects (worth 25 percent each), one in the Tourism sector and one in Agribusiness. These evaluations employed a mystery shopper approach in which a site selection consultant asked IPIs for information about two investment projects on behalf of an unnamed potential investor. The two scenarios measure how well IPIs provide country- and sector-specific information and manage foreign company relationships.

The Tourism inquiry evaluated IPIs at a “short-listing” stage of the process, where the investor had already carried out preliminary research. The sector was chosen because virtually every economy in the world seeks to promote some type of investment in the tourism sector (with some operating agencies dedicated strictly to tourism investment). It was chosen also because of tourism’s potential to create a large volume

of jobs, and thus have a significant positive economic impact, particularly in developing countries. The assessment related to a hotel development project, which for developed countries was an ultra-luxury resort and for developing countries was a four-star, city business hotel.

The focus of the Agribusiness inquiry was on information provision at the earlier “long-listing” stage. Given global concerns about food security and the increasing cost of basic staples, this is a key sector for a majority of economies, and especially for developing economies. This assessment related to a seed facility for tubers; for developed countries, it focused primarily on R&D, and for developing countries it focused on growing / production.

Web Site Assessment: Methodology and Assessment

An established online presence is now virtually a prerequisite for an IPI serious about attracting investors. For companies or their consultants doing preliminary site-selection research, Web sites often afford the first real view of a location and the first point of contact with IPIs. For an IPI, a Web site is a cost-effective, 24/7/365 way to promote investment in its economy.

For IPIs, best-practice Web sites are those that

What does GIPB measure? • The ability of IPIs to meet investors’ information needs at the early stages of the investment process

What does GIPB not measure? • Countries’ overall FDI competitiveness • Countries’ business climates • IPIs’ facilitation at the site visit level • IPIs’ services to domestic investors or to established foreign investors


clearly showcase the advantages of a location while demonstrating an understanding of investors’ needs and a commitment to meeting those needs throughout the location decision process.

To understand where and how well IPIs are achieving their investment promotion objectives online, GIPB assessed each IPI Web site in four main dimensions or themes:

•• Information Architecture: How easy is it to find the Web site online and navigate around it?

•• Design: How is information presented to support the online promotion effort?

•• Content: How relevant, comprehensive and updated is the country and sector information for targeted foreign investors?

•• Promotional Effectiveness: How well does the site market the location and the IPI’s services?

Each Web site was evaluated for aspects relating to the four themes. As the number of questions

within each theme varies, a weighting system was applied to ensure that final results reflect the actual importance of each theme from the investor’s perspective. Web site content (core country information and sector information) is the most heavily weighted theme (50 percent).

Project Inquiry Handling Assessment: Methodology and Assessment

Providing a best practice inquiry handling service seems to be more challenging for IPIs than getting the basics of a Web site right. But it is at the core of investment promotion because it involves interacting with the potential investor and thus is the best opportunity for an IPI to directly influence company investment decisions.

The GIPB framework for assessing project inquiry handling defined best-practice attributes within four main dimensions or themes:

•• Availability and Contactability: How easy is it to find the IPI online and contact a knowledgeable project manager?

•• Responsiveness and Handling: How skillfully does IPI staff engage with the prospective investor by email and telephone?

•• Response: How relevant, thorough, and professional is the IPI’s response to specific inquiries? Does it sell the location?

•• Customer Care: To what extent does the IPI follow up with the potential investor after having provided their response, in order to convert the interest into a firm lead?

Similarly to the Web site assessment, the Response submitted by IPIs was the most heavily weighted element (55 percent). To read more about the GIPB methodology, see Chapter 4 of this report.

Web Site Assessment

Information Architecture

(10%)

Design(10%)

Content (50%)

Promotional Effectiveness

(30%)


ACP Overview: Matching Investment Potential with Actual Results Requires Facilitation

In the competition to attract FDI, many African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) economies’ IPIs must manage circumstances they cannot change: a low-income economy, a land-locked or island location, political upheaval that can undermine investment promotion efforts. However, one critical element in attracting FDI is within IPIs’ power to change: The face they show to the investment world, online and when handling project inquiries. Scarce or unreliable business data about a location is the first barrier to getting companies to consider it. By providing comprehensive, relevant, up-to-date business data, IPIs can lower that barrier and give investors a glimpse of the location’s true potential.

Though many of the 77 ACP IPIs are small, with limited resources and little experience in attracting foreign investors, some achieved strong results in GIPB 2012 assessments. These IPIs offer proof that professionalism and focus are more important than budget and staff size, and that quality investment facilitation is within reach for all ACP economies. As more ACP IPIs

follow these regional top performers’ example, they will move closer to realizing their goal of attracting FDI.

GIPB 2012 found some IPIs in all four subregions -- the Caribbean, East and Southern Africa, West and Central Africa, and the Pacific – making gains in standards of service. However, as Figure 1 shows, all of the top six performers in ACP are from the Caribbean. While GIPB 2012 found many ACP IPIs are learning to take advantage of the Internet to promote their economies, this was offset in many cases by worsening performance in handling project inquiries from investors.

ACP Performance Against Global Competition

Although on average higher than in ACP economies, global IPI performance in GIPB 2012 mirrored ACP trends, with performance improving in Web sites but slipping in project inquiry handling compared to GIPB 2009. In a

Figure 1: Top Six Overall ACP IPIs

Inquiry Handling

Responsiveness & Handling

(15%)

Customer Care (20%)

Availability & Contactability

(10%)

Response (55%)


breakdown of results by region6 (Figure 2), ACP economies generally performed competitively against world standards in Web sites. However, the overall average result of 31 percent for ACP still represents a weak performance, which was 10 percentage points behind the world average.

In GIPB 2012, 32 ACP IPIs (42 percent) had a good Web site including some at best-practice level. But most of these leading IPIs failed to provide equally strong service in project inquiry handling. An exception to this is the top ACP overall performer, the Grenada Industrial Development Corporation, which maintains both a useful Web site and a competent inquiry handing service. GIPB 2012 also found 10 ACP IPI Web sites that were very weak, plus 9 IPIs with no online presence at all7.

6 Note Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean results also include the relevant ACP IPIs in that region 7 IPIs without a Web site were: Agence de Promotion des

In the two project inquiry handling assessments of GIPB 2012, ACP IPIs averaged results below 16 percent – meaning that for two sectors important to ACP economies, Agribusiness and Tourism, IPIs showed very weak handling of investors’ information requests. The Tourism project inquiry found only 7 ACP IPIs delivering project inquiry responses at an average level or above. For the Agribusiness inquiry, only 9 IPIs performed at an average level or above. With such poor facilitation – and competing against other world IPIs that perform well above this level -- ACP IPIs cannot expect to advance to a project’s short-list stage.

Knowing this, ambitious ACP IPIs should look for steps they can take – particularly those that are cost-effective and achievable in-house without external assistance – to raise their performance closer to their competitors’. Performance checklists provide a starting point.

ACP 1-2-3 Checklist for Effective Web sites:

•• 1. Develop a well-designed, easy-to-use interface with a simple off-the-shelf content management system that an in-house editor can operate.

•• 2. Provide working contact details online so that your IPI staff members can be contacted easily.

•• 3. Identify the sectors that are strongest for your location, and present key data for those sectors as well as for the overall economy.

Investissements, Cameroon; Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Promotion of Small and Medium Sized Business and Industries, Central African Republic; Office de Promotion Industrielle du Tchad, Chad; Agence Nationale de Promotion des Investisse-ments, Comoros; Eritrea Investment Center; Direcçao de Promoçao de Investimento Privado, Guinea-Bissau; Commerce & Business Development Division - Department of Commerce, Industry and Environment, Nauru; Palau Foreign Investment Board; Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Tu-valu

Figure 2: Breakdown of GIPB 2012 Average Results by Region


At the Grenada Industrial Development Corporation, one person is in charge of research, Web site maintenance, and inquiry screening. And the entire Investment Promotion Department comprises only five people. So, how did GIDC rank #1 among ACP countries and #26 among national IPIs globally? Speed. Patience. And teamwork.

GIDC knows that it must find a way to distinguish itself as one of many similar, small, and relatively remote Caribbean countries competing for FDI in the region. It has methodically pursued speed as its competitive advantage. All informational inquiries – and it receives an average of 1.5 per day – must be responded to within 48 hours - with the CEO copied in every response. All inquiries regarding real investment projects must be acknowledged within the same timeframe, given an initial response by a project manager within 5 days, and given a full response with incentives, concessions, and other critical, project-specific, government-negotiated details within 20 days. The same spirit is applied to the Web site, which must be updated with news, information, and events every week.

In order to provide lightning-quick responses, GIDC has to have a deep store of high-quality content on hand. This is where GIDC’s patience has come into play. Rather than scrambling to build an electronic library of investor information or resigning itself to the idea that a one-person research department cannot develop the deep, sector-specific information that investors demand, GIDC has set about building a top-notch reservoir of investor information one piece at a time, however long it takes. When information never before sought is requested for the first time, GIDC works with ministries and private sector partners to find the information and present it in a way that both satisfies the inquirer’s needs and is easily shared with future inquirers. The new information is shared with the rest of the investment promotion department and stored in a common server, so that everyone knows what information is available and can access it themselves.

This involvement of the entire team is the final ingredient in GIDC’s success. They cannot simply be users of the information created by the researcher. They must also be contributors. GIDC’s CEO fosters an organizational culture that finds personal reward in collective success. So, each member of the team takes pride of ownership in the agency’s electronic library and is constantly on the lookout for potentially useful information which they can add to make it stronger.

This strategy of coordinated speed extends well beyond information provision into all aspects of investor support and has yielded large, concrete impacts for this island nation of 90,000 people. In April 2009, a St. Lucian condiment manufacturer came to GIDC asking for urgent support in getting a manufacturing facility up and running by the end of the year. In eight months, GIDC took the company from initial inquiry to operations, getting factory space built, licenses issued, and workers hired. Without the capacity to coordinate quickly with all officials and service providers, GIDC would never have won the investment for Grenada. And the company never would have trusted GIDC to undertake the challenge, if GIDC did not already have a strong reputation among the business community for speed and hard work. In the end, that reputation and GIDC follow-through brought the country $5 million in capital investment, or about 0.5% of the country’s GDP for that year.

Box 1: #1 with 1 - How Grenada Topped the Ranks of ACP IPIs with One Person Handling Web Site Maintenance and Inquiry Screening


ACP 1-2-3 Checklist for Effective Project Inquiry Handling:

•• 1. Design and enforce two simple protocols: One for staff to follow so all project inquiry responses are professional and prompt; and one for managers to ensure oversight of the inquiry pipeline and quality control of responses.

•• 2. Insofar as possible, provide a response for every project inquiry that tries to answer all the questions asked, performing additional research as necessary to achieve this.

•• 3. Make sure email and telephone lines are working at all times and answered promptly during reasonable business hours.

Providing high-quality service both online and offline must be the goal of every IPI. Without a Web site that can intrigue and inform the investor, inquiries may be few. At the same time, if the IPI cannot respond to inquiries by delivering high-quality, hands-on service to investors, then there is limited worth to attracting them via the Web site. GIPB 2012 assessment results challenge ACP IPIs to increase proficiency in both aspects of facilitation, especially where better performance would add the most value for investors.

Since GIPB 2006, Progress is Slow

Table 3 considers the evolution of ACP IPIs by subregion between GIPB 2006 and GIPB 2012.

In this period, Caribbean IPIs improved by six percentage points, a gain reflecting improved use of the Internet for promotion and slight progress in handling project inquiries. In the same period, East and Southern Africa IPIs stagnated at the 30 percent range of weak performance, as improvements in Web sites were offset by lower facilitation of project inquiries. IPIs in the Pacific, after improvement from GIPB 2006 to GIPB 2009, fell in GIPB 2012 – of particular concern, as the remote locations of most Pacific economies make them particularly reliant on IPIs to raise their visibility with investors. IPIs in West and Central Africa gained some ground after a decline in GIPB 2009, yet most results remained very weak with just five of 25 IPIs (those of Mali, Senegal, Ghana, South Africa, Gambia) rated average or better.

Quick Improvement for ACP IPIs is Achievable

The three IPIs that made the most substantial progress in the ACP region provide examples for what is realistically achievable.

•• The St. Kitts Investment Promotion Agency (www.stkittsipa.org) has shown substantial improvement since GIPB 2009. Then, it had no Web site; today, its site is close to best-practice caliber, thanks to a simple, conventional interface, content organized for easy use, and clear information on how the IPI can assist investors.

Region GIPB06 GIPB09 GIPB12Overall Change from

GIPB06Change from

GIPB09

African, Caribbean and Pacific 31% 30% 31% 0% 1%Caribbean 43% 38% 49% +6% 11%East and Southern Africa 32% 36% 33% +1% 3%Pacific 26% 35% 27% +1% 8%West and Central Africa 27% 18% 20% -7% 2%

Table 1: Evolution of ACP Sub regional Overall Results


•• The Investment Promotion Agency of Mali (www.apimali.gov.ml) has made major improvements. In 2009 it had no Web site, now it Web site shows good standards and its handling of the Tourism inquiry approached best practice level. . Mali stands as an example of how to maintain both a helpful Web site and a strong capacity to handle project inquiries.

•• The Sierra Leone Investment and Export Promotion Agency (www.sliepa.org), which had no Web site in GIPB 2009, managed to develop a good Web site by GIPB 2012 despite its recent past of political conflict. Sierra Leone’s circumstances make it especially important that its IP I Web site help rebuild image, stress that the location is open for business and reiterate the IPI’s readiness to support investors throughout project inquiry and implementation.

What is the Pattern of Overall ACP Performance in GIPB 2012?

Figure 3 shows the spread of ACP IPIs’ results. The number of IPIs that reached at least the average level of attainment in GIPB 2012 is encouraging, as this means an IPI is able to provide at least a reasonable level of service to investors. For an investor seeking facilitation assistance, the Caribbean is the best place to be: Two IPIs in the region showed overall good results (Grenada Industrial Development Corporation and Trinidad and Tobago’s Evolving TecKnologies and Enterprise Development), and only three IPIs were below average.

Where an IPI did fall below average – particularly in ACP locations for which good information is not available elsewhere – investors may remain unaware of the location’s strengths and drop it from consideration. Low-quality service at this stage also makes investors question the IPI’s ability to support a project through implementation, and this in itself can discourage them from investing.

In the first GIPB report in 2006, the Rwandan Investment and Export Promotion Agency’s (RIEPA’s) Web site was rated “weak”. In the years that followed, it enlisted extensive technical assistance to get its basic practices and systems into place, so that by the time of the GIPB 2009 assessment, its Web site had achieved a “good” status. Its inquiry responses resulted twice as high as in 2006.

Undoubtedly, these results were hindered by the fact that RIEPA was simultaneously undergoing a major restructuring and merger with seven other public agencies to become the Rwanda Development Board (RDB). However, it also suffered from a lack of cus-tomer-service orientation, which hurt its ability to adequately respond to inquiries and was in danger of worsening with the creation of a larger body with both promotional and regulatory responsibilities.

Recognizing this, the Government of Rwanda recruited a famed business guru to head the new RDB and instill it with a commit-ment to customer service and a general private sector mentality to dealing with investors, so that it might achieve its potential at winning investors over with exceptional service. This CEO was followed by one that had long experience as an international expert in investment issues and promotion best practices. Old RIEPA staff members were not only retained in the new body, allowing performance gains to be preserved, they were also elevated to COO and CFO, consolidating the customer-service message from top management.

As a result, in GIPB 2012, the RDB’s Web site has substantially improved reaching standards of “best practice” and its agribusiness inquiry response was among the strongest in Sub-Saharan Africa. The fact remains that Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the worst-per-forming regions in the world. But, if RDB were to continue improving at the same rate as in the last two issues of GIPB, it would achieve best practice standards as globally respected IPIs CINDE (Costa Rica) and CzechInvest (Czech Republic).

Box 2: Ever Forward - The Rwanda Development Board’s Slow but Steady March to Good Facilitation


Most ACP IPIs Show Gains in Online Information but Major Gaps in Project Inquiry Handling

Though ACP IPIs overall have significantly raised the quality of their Web sites, quality of project inquiry handling remains a concern. GIPB 2012 found many ACP IPIs performing well on content and promotional effectiveness (see Figure 4), the more difficult themes to perform highly in the

Web site assessment. Given this capacity, these IPIs should be able to provide the same quality of content within a project inquiry response, but in GIPB 2012 they did not. To close that gap, IPIs that have sector information online must use it more proactively in responding to project inquiries (and not simply refer investors to the Web site). Similarly, IPIs should avoid referring inquiring investors to other organizations where

Figure 3: Good Practice IPIs only Emerging in the Caribbean

Figure 4: IPIs Perform Weakly Where the Tasks are Most Advanced


the IPI can’t control the quality of the interaction, and instead position themselves as the one-stop-shop contact for investors seeking information on a location.

ACP subregions are worlds apart not only geo-graphically but in investment promotion practice as well. Thus, some strategic areas for ACP IPIs’ improvement are different:

•• In West and Central Africa, too many IPIs still have extremely limited information online (or no Web sites at all). As no investor will look long at a location where it cannot source information, these IPIs should focus on conducting more research on their location and presenting this to investors online.

•• In the Pacific and in East and Southern Africa, while IPIs’ Web sites are generally more developed than those of their West and Central Africa counterparts, more in-depth investment information is needed, especially sector information. The fact that these IPIs maintain Web sites but generally ignore project inquiries suggests a need to balance priorities: A plain Web site backed up by professional staff dealing with inquiries is far preferable to a glossy site behind which inquiry-handling assistance is lacking.

•• In the Caribbean, where most IPIs now have good quality Web sites, the next step is to focus on capturing all project inquiries and answering them with a depth and nuance of information that matches the quality of information online. As location factors for Caribbean economies tend to be very similar, their IPIs also should focus on differentiating their offers from their neighbors’ with comparative data.

Despite differences in ACP locations, all ACP IPIs would benefit from attention to two overarching goals:

Always respond to project inquiries. Give every project inquiry a prompt, professional response, but devote the most senior staff and the most staff time to inquiries relating to priority sectors.

Prioritize market research. While other IPI tasks may be more visible, political or urgent, market research is the cornerstone activity of serious investment promotion. Spotlessly-accurate, regularly-updated data is the raw material for every other activity IPIs undertake.


By comparing top-ranked IPIs to those that performed poorly, GIPB 2009 uncovered essential practices that distinguish effective facilitators. Taken together, the 14 practices form a roadmap for IPIs determined to increase their success in pursuing FDI:

Foster a Private Sector-Minded Culture1. Build a staff with public and private sector experience.1. Build a staff with public and private sector experience.2. Offer salaries and bonuses closer to private sector standards.3. Secure operational freedom and high-level reporting channels.4. Establish and concentrate efforts in a few priority sectors.5. Coordinate facilitation with networks and partners subnationally and overseas.6. Maintain English-speaking staff in sufficient numbers and with the full range of

facilitation skills.7. Continually train and develop staff, especially in soft skills.

Accumulate Deep Business Knowledge8. Establish a minimum level of in-house research capacity.9. Develop account managers into reservoirs of knowledge on particular sectors.10. Ensure the accumulation of knowledge and its relevance.

Implement Internal Systems for Consistently Good Facilitation11. Make facilitation a priority within the overall strategy, including by training and

dedicating an adequate proportion of staff.12. Maintain the equipment and practices to be easily reached and to quickly return calls

and e-mails.13. Demonstrate professionalism and dynamism through the Web site with frequent news

updates of importance to investors.14. Follow detailed guidelines on the content, style, timeframe, and quality assurance of

inquiry responses.

Box 3: Checklist of 14 Steps to Becoming a Top IPI in Investment Facilitation

23chapter 2: maximizing the Potential of online Investment Promotion

chaPter 2: maxImIzInG the PotentIal oF onlIne Investment PromotIon

The Role of the Web Site in ACPAn IPI’s Web site is an opportunity to showcase its location in the best possible light. For l ow-income economies or those that are difficult or expensive to visit, using online tools to reach investors around the world is all the more crucial. GIPB 2012 showed that ACP economies could do much better.

An IPI’s Web site is an opportunity to showcase its location in the best possible light. For low-income economies or those that are difficult or expensive to visit, using online tools to reach investors around the world is all the more crucial. GIPB 2012 showed that ACP economies could do much better.

Today, very few IPIs across the world do not have an online presence. If the mandate of an IPI is to serve potential foreign investors, then having a Web site – a digital window to the world – is an essential first step.

Of the 77 ACP economies assessed in GIPB 2012, nine IPIs (12 percent) did not have a Web site: the IPIs of Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Nauru, Palau, and Tuvalu. At the other end of the spectrum, five IPIs’ Web

sites (Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, and Mauritius) performed at a level of global best practice (81 percent or higher, shown in Figure 5), with an additional 27 performing in the good category (61 percent or higher). This meant that overall, 32 IPIs (42 percent) in ACP maintained good or best-practice Web sites.

The four themes of Web site quality assessed were:

•• Information Architecture (worth 10 percent of the overall result)

•• Design (10 percent)

•• Content (50 percent)

•• Promotional Effectiveness (30 percent)


With the exception of the Antigua and Barbuda Investment Authority, the IPIs above also achieved at least a good result in GIPB 2009. They maintained or raised the level of performance in GIPB 2012 by providing high-quality core and sector information content. To achieve this commendable level of performance, other ACP IPIs should focus on developing content known to “hook” investors: data on key location factors such as macroeconomic data, labor costs, infrastructure, and capacity within priority sectors. Unlike in OECD high-income economies where investors may easily find such information elsewhere, IPIs for many economies of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific (and some of the smaller islands in the Caribbean) may be the only sources of quality data on their locations. Failure to provide such data deprives investors of information they need to appraise a project’s feasibility and competitiveness.

Figure 5: Best Practice ACP Web sites

1: They are all islands. 2: Their best-practice Web sites lead their respective regions.

Mauritius, Jamaica and Fiji do not let the fact that they are islands – some might say remote islands in the case of Mauri-tius and Fiji – stop them from catching the eyes of investors through good facilitation. These IPIs have the best Web sites in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific, respectively. So, what sets these Web sites apart from the rest?

1. As one navigates these investment portals, it is clear that all three IPIs use their Web sites as strategic promotional tools and not just virtual bookshelves.

2. The sites are designed to maximize page placement on search engines such as Google. Using Web marketing techniques, such as carefully crafted page titles and headers in the site source code and high numbers of links to and from other relevant sites, these IPIs guarantee themselves the top position on Google search results for “Invest in (Mauritius/Jamaica/Fiji).” One may have trouble finding the countries on a map, but not on the Internet.

3. When visitors enter these sites, they are quickly convinced that the IPIs are legitimate partners in the process for investing in those countries. It is clear from the positioning, branding, and language that they are official, government-mandated organizations.

4. Prospective investors will find most of the up-to-date information they need to decide whether a country merits short-listing. This information typically includes:• Macroeconomic data and statistics, including trade

volumes; • Key sector profiles; • Operating costs, including labor and utilities• Important infrastructure;• Taxes and incentives.

5. The visitor will also find a strong business case for investing in those locations, positioned against their competition and reinforced through testimonials and case studies.

6. Finally, a visitor wanting to request additional information or personal service will easily find current e-mail addresses and working phone numbers for the specific staff members specialized in their issues.

These IPIs may be oceans away from target investors, but when they speak the investors’ language and tell them exactly what they need to hear before even being asked, they build a confidence and trust that make investors feel like they could be next door.

Box 4: What two things do Mauritius, Jamaica and Fiji have in common as investment locations?


ACP Web Sites in the Global Context

Figure 6 breaks down GIPB 2012 assessment theme results by region8. ACP IPIs’ results in information architecture and, to a lesser extent, design, suggest they understand conventional Web site mechanics and design standards, and have access to needed programmers and designers. As it appears that the aspects of Web site development that IPIs can outsource are generally performed well and receiving adequate resources, IPIs should now turn more attention to those aspects of a promotional Web site that an IPI cannot outsource: provision of quality business information that has promotional value.

There, the ACP IPI Web sites’ efforts generally falter. The two key factors – of serving potential investors and positioning the location through quality business information (content) and marketing (promotional effectiveness) – are markedly weaker, widening the distance between IPIs in ACP and top-performing regions. If information is scarce or useless to the potential investor, then even the best-designed IPI Web site is impotent. If information lacks a promotional punch, it could as easily be obtained from another government organization such as a Ministry of the Statistics Bureau, and the IPI has added no value.

Lower content results suggest that IPIs may provide basic information, but lack more detailed information on competitive sector strengths and benchmarked qualitative and quantitative data. Lower promotional effectiveness results suggest a failure to describe the location’s advantages to investors with the right mix of comparative data against competing locations, case studies and testimonials. Lower

8 Note Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean results also include the relevant ACP IPIs in that region

results also may reflect Web sites too focused on IPIs’ administrative workings (“it’s about us”) rather than the actual services the IPIs offer to investors (“it’s about you”).

ACP Online: Upward Trend in Overall Performance, Driven Chiefly by Caribbean IPIs

Table 2 considers the evolution of ACP IPIs’ Web site performance. With Caribbean region IPIs establishing a strong example for what even small islands, teams and budgets can achieve, the challenge for every other ACP IPI is clear: To determine the strategic objectives of its Web site and dedicate the necessary resources to reaching those objectives.

While the Caribbean was behind the Pacific and at the level of East and Southern Africa in GIPB 2009, it gained 22 percentage points and surpassed other subregions in GIPB 2012 by consistently delivering the right quality and quantity of relevant core and sector

Figure 6: Breakdown of Web Site Scores by Region


information. East and Southern Africa also competed relatively strongly, with results similar to other world regions in GIPB 2012 and slight promotional effectiveness gains that suggest some Web sites are improving their marketing.

Historically, the countries least connected to the global economy have been geographically isolated–small islands and landlocked countries. However, the advent of the Internet now allows these countries to cross oceans and mountains to lay their countries’ business cases at the fingertips of investors everywhere, instantly, and at very little cost.

This is one of the main characteristics which bind the disparate regions of Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Islands under the common label of “the ACP regions.” Thirty-two of the 77 ACP countries are islands, and 31 are low income, with annual GNI per capita of below $995. This makes effective Web sites an especially important and affordable way for ACP countries to level the playing field in the intense global competition for FDI.

However, most ACP IPIs are missing this opportunity. Although those in the Caribbean do tend to have good Web sites, with an average result of 70%, the IPIs of Africa and the Pacific average only 41% and 39%, respectively. The most striking fault among these is the lack of maps and other features that help investors see the practical possibilities of doing business in locations that they find exotic.

A map can have tremendous promotional power, giving investors confidence through objective facts that there are market opportunities and critical infrastructure nearby. How far are you from the nearest port? If you are in Uganda, an investor needs to know that the answer is Mombasa, Kenya, as well as have a sense of the distance, roads, and transport cost. How many hours are you by ship or airplane to the target market’s port of entry? What are the carriers, routes, frequency, and costs of that transport? For a country like Haiti, the most important trade infrastructure may be across the border in the Dominican Republic.Other critical information which isolated countries should prioritize on their Web sites include telecommunications infrastructure, such as international Internet lines; regional competitive strengths, such as preferential market access; and companies present in sector-specific value chains.

As they stand now, only 38% of ACP IPIs have any kind of map at all, and many of these are ineffective at transmitting even the most basic location information, such as continental coasts, neighboring countries, and other reference points. Many of the basic maps needed or simple, map-making tools are available on line and can be duplicated on IPI Web sites free of charge.

Box 5: No Country Is a Virtual Island

Region GIPB06 GIPB09 GIPB12Overall Change

from GIPB06Change from

GIPB09

African, Caribbean and Pacific 39% 41% 47% +7% 5%West and Central Africa 32% 24% 30% -2% 6%Pacific 41% 52% 39% -2% 14%East and Southerm Africa 42% 52% 55% +12% 3%Caribbean 40% 48% 70% +30% 22%

Table 2: Evolution of ACP Subregional Web Sites Results

Given that in GIPB 2006 all four ACP subregions had similar results, the ascendance of the Caribbean demonstrates what is achievable in just a few years if IPIs create and pursue a solid online strategy.


ACP IPIs Can Learn From Their Peers How to Improve Performance

Table 3 shows that among ACP IPIs, three of the four highest improvers started from a low base but leapt ahead by putting essential building blocks in place: a Web site easily found through Google, with a navigable design that meets Internet conventions, and content that delivers basic location information and markets both the economy and the IPIs’ services.

What is the Pattern of Web Site Performances in GIPB 2012?

Figure 7 shows the spread of ACP IPIs’ results. With a number of good and best practice Web sites but many more judged weak or very weak, the world of investment promotion is increasingly split between the IPIs progressing rapidly and those left behind. The trailing IPIs should rededicate themselves to what is arguably their most important contribution to their economies: developing relevant investor information. This means carrying out research on the sectors and subsectors in which the economy has comparative advantages and developing attractive value propositions; sourcing macro and sector-specific information from other Ministries and organizations, and making sure that all this information is kept updated.

Subregion IPI Key Areas of Improvement

Caribbean St. Kitts and Nevis Formerly no Web site, now well-designed site; starting to develop innovative features

East and Southern Africa Zambia Redesigned site with a high level of core information

Pacific Solomon Islands Slight improvement, chiefly in creation of more sector content, moves the site into the good category

West and Central Africa Sierra Leone Formerly no Web site, now well-designed site that is simple to use and navigate.

Table 3: Highest Regional Improvers

Gaps in ACP Web Site Quality, Especially in Key Areas: Content and Promotional Effectiveness

The fact that the top Web site performers in each subregion (Table 4) are at or near best practice suggests there is potential across subregions to achieve facilitation excellence.

Figure 8 compares the performance of IPI Web sites in the ACP region and the best-performing region in the world, OECD high-income. While the themes of information architecture and design were relatively strong for both, ACP results were significantly lower in two areas critical to investment facilitation, content and promotional effectiveness.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Caribbean East and Southern Africa

Pacific West and Central Africa

Best Practice (81-100%) Good (61-80%) Average (41-60%)

Weak (20-40%) Very Weak (0-20%)

Figure 7: Best Practice Web Sites are Emerging


Subregion IPI Key Areas of Strength

Caribbean Jamaica High level of information provision, some promotional material

East and Southern Africa Mauritius Straightforward, well-designed site; strong delivery of contact information, including sector contacts

Pacific Fiji Strong design makes the site easy for investors to navigate

West and Central Africa Gambia Simple interface, well-suited to the business user, allows quick access to relevant core and sector information

Table 4: Best Performers

Figure 9 shows how ACP IPIs in each subregion performed on each theme of the GIPB 2012 Web site assessment. While Caribbean IPIs averaged at least good performance across all themes, limited content and promotional effectiveness suppressed results in other subregions.

Focus and the Task for the Future

This chapter’s examination of GIPB 2012 findings points to two conclusions, the first bracing but the second promising. The first conclusion is that some ACP economies still have not truly grasped the potential marketing power behind a fully-functional, high-quality Web site. Particularly when locations are less well-known, investors typically explore them first via the Internet. Especially when locations are remote, interacting online may be the IPI’s only chance to impress an investor enough to stay in consideration for a project.

The second conclusion, and the more encouraging one: An IPI can perform with distinction online, and reach that performance level relatively quickly and inexpensively, even if its staff and budget are limited. Examples throughout ACP, especially from the Caribbean, show that with a concerted effort to identify and serve investors’ needs online, IPIs can make real improvements that increase their chances of attracting FDI.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Information•Architecture

Design Content Promotional•Effectiveness

West•and•Central•Africa

Pacific

East•and•Southern•Africa

Caribbean

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Information Architecture

Design

Content

Promotional Effectiveness

OECD High-Income

Other IPIs

ACP

From a few points above “weak” to a few points short of “best practice,” the Gambia Investment and Export Promotion Agency (GIEPA) leapt among the strongest for Web sites in Sub-Saharan African. With a strong improvement since 2009, the main drivers of this leap forward were the addition of high-quality business information and greater promotional value, the hardest categories to perform well on in GIPB.

GIEPA’s Web site (www.gipfza.gm) offers high-quality business information, summarizing the country’s economic indicators and trends, infrastructure, incentives offered, start-up procedures, and basic business costs. Understanding that good content can be wasted without equal presentation, GIEPA has gone the next step, spicing up its content with promotional value. A dozen corporate testimonials; punchy, memorable, marketing language; and short, intuitive site navigation that leads visitors to reason after reason to invest in Gambia are among the features that have raised GIEPA’s Web site to the top tier in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Box 6: The Gambia’s Leap Forward

Figure 8: The Performance Gap of ACP IPIs’ Web Sites

Figure 9: Performance Across the Four Web Site Themes


Quick Wins for Effective Online Promotion for ACP countries

Following these tips for Web site improvements will help IPIs be more effective:

•• Consider the IPI Web site your primary promotional and facilitation tool. Visiting your Web site may be an investor’s first interaction with your location – and if the site frustrates or doesn’t “hook” the investor, it could also be the last interaction. Load the site with relevant, timely data, investor case studies and testimonials, and details on all that the IPI can do for investors.

•• Budget for Web site creation and updating. Web sites are not a one-time, outsourced effort. IPIs’ online budgets also must cover ongoing site development, content research and development, regular updating, and ongoing Web hosting. A Web site where even high-quality content clearly has not been updated for months will drive away investors.

•• Involve promotional as well as editorial staff in Web site content. IPI staff members that specialize in promotion and interact with investors will have valuable insights into what investors should see online. IPIs should incorporate promotional staff into the team that conceives, creates and updates Web site content.

•• The architecture and design of the Web site should remain simple and easy for investors to use, and should not be the primary focus of the IPI’s time and resources. Web site navigation should quickly lead users to information with commonly-used language (About Us, Contacts) and clear labels (Key Sectors, Business Costs, Investor Case Studies). Presentation should be visually compelling but not overly “busy,” using graphics and visuals that focus on the

location’s potential for business.

For their Web sites specifically, each subregion’s IPIs might focus more on these areas:

Caribbean: As most of the key elements are already there in Caribbean Web sites, use content, including comparative information, case studies, testimonials and news stories, to set your location apart from others with a similar offer. List IPI services for investors in a way that shows the value added.

East and Southern Africa, and the Pacific: Provide sector content that answers investors’ questions about key location factors of cost and quality relevant to their project, including quality of labor, availability of basic infrastructure, the size of the sector/market and other sector-specific data. Well-sourced, credible information encourages investors to take a second look at the location.

West and Central Africa: If you lack an online presence, create at least a simple Web site, with free tools available online from providers such as Google. If you have a Web site, be sure it has complete, current contact information visible on the home page, with telephone numbers including the international code. Describe how your IPI can provide support throughout the investor process.

Although the IPI Web site is important as the initial “shop window” for potential investors, IPIs also must demonstrate competence and diligence on the “shop floor” where investors are served, with responses to their specific inquiries and conscientious customer service. Dealing directly with investors is typically where IPIs can have the most impact. Responding to a company’s approach with prompt, professional service at this stage can get an IPI’s location onto the shortlist, while providing halfhearted or no service to the company can derail any chance of attracting FDI from that company.


The best possible ACP IPI Web site would bring together the key strengths of the Web sites achieving the highest results in the ACP regions for each category of the GIPB 2012 assessment:

The Information Architecture of Fiji Islands Trade & Investment Bureau (www.ftib.org.fj)

An IPI’s Web site should always make it fast and easy to find the information that a busy investor needs. Sticking to conventional navigation bars with clear labels is the best way of ensuring that an investor will not get frustrated when navigating and abandon the search on the IPI site. In the case of Fiji Islands Trade & Investment Bureau, a clear menu on the homepage indicates the section of the site intended “for investors.” Once inside, a simple top menu with conventional labels such as “Why Invest In Fiji?” (location advantages), “Doing Business in Fiji” (how to start a project), and “Investment Opportunities in Fiji” (specific projects), offer investors clear signposts. The Web site loads quickly, and submenus that appear when the mouse passes over a menu option give visitors the ability to go to any of 28 pages with a single click. But just in case, every page comes with “breadcrumbs”, or a page navigation path, so that visitors cannot get lost.

St. Lucia’s web site is conservative in the best possible way. It is a safe bet to cultivate a professional web design that is well balanced and does not risk distracting the visitor from the task of gathering data for project short-listing.

Saint Lucia’s web design reinforces the IPI’s branding and the location’s assets in terms of business and natural beauty. With its crisp design, Invest Saint Lucia’s Web site is both attractive and easy to read, as the choice of fonts and colors add to the site’s readability. The design provides for a small but prominent and dynamic series of photos presenting the island’s attractiveness in five sectors, namely tourism, manufacturing, finance, agro-processing, and ICT.

The home page’s layout is as much for branding as for informational purposes, with the IPI’s slogan “Investment Never Looked Better” jumping out at the visitor alongside several striking photographs of the island’s natural beauty.

The Content of Jamaica Promotions Corporation – JAMPRO (www.jamaicatradeandinvest.org)

A prospective investor visits an IPI Web site hoping for detailed information on the likely benefits, costs, and risks of doing business in that country. When he has a specific project to implement, these facts are compared against those in other locations, to arrive at a short list and eventually an investment location. The more detailed and extensive the facts that an IPI provides, the better their chances of getting to that next stage of consideration.

Box 7: Best ACP Web Site Mix


JAMPRO takes this to heart and jumps right in with sector-specific figures on competitive products, market size and growth, incentives, government support programs (e.g. for export development), and real stories of other companies’ experiences. However, JAMPRO’s most exceptional feature for content provision is its proprietary Investment Map, an interactive tool which allows investors to create in a few clicks their own maps with the data of greatest importance to them. Available data covers infrastructure and institutions, investment opportunities, available land, and natural resources, among others. The example below shows free zones, airports, ports, and workers with a tertiary education. At a glance, it is clear that the two locations with the best confluence of these factors are Kingston and Montego Bay.

The Promotional Effectiveness of Botswana Export Development & Investment Authority – BEDIA (www.bedia.co.bw)

The ACP IPI with the best Web site in GIPB 2009, BEDIA remains among the strongest and is especially strong in the category of promotional effectiveness. Its home page uses a simple 3-step concept to neatly encapsulate the advantages, opportunities, and IPI services investors can expect in Botswana. The “Why Botswana” page gets right to the point with 10 powerful advantages of doing business in Botswana, from a very low 15% corporate tax to Botswana’s rating as the most transparent country in Africa to a list of attractive markets in which it enjoys preferential access.

The “Available Opportunities” page features engaging videos of happy investors and gives quick details about specialized raw materials, services, and markets that offer very specific sub-sector opportunities. And, the “How can we help you?” page clearly lists the regulatory procedures and start-up steps with which BEDIA can assist, namely “ clearances and approvals for manufacturing licenses, residence and work permits as well as infrastructural facilities like land, factory buildings, water, electricity, etc. with minimal delays.”

33chapter 3: meeting Investors’ Information needs

ACP economies’ capacity to handle project inquiries varies significantly Responding to investment project inquiries is an essential task for IPIs, as it represents an opportunity to engage with investors and sell the location to them. Yet in handling project inquiries, most ACP economies’ IPIs do not consistently provide a professional response, let alone a proactive one.

chaPter 3: meetInG Investors’ InFormatIon needs

In GIPB 2012, ACP IPIs showed a disappointing level of project inquiry handling capability: None reached the good level and just 4 reached the average level (the IPIs of Grenada, St. Lucia, Trinidad & Tobago, and Mali). The four themes of project inquiry handling quality were:

•• Availability and Contactability (worth 10 percent of the overall result)

•• Responsiveness and Handling (15 percent)

•• Response (55 percent)

•• Customer Care (20 percent)

As with the Web site evaluation, IPIs performed lower in the most important aspects of the evaluation – in this case, response and customer care. Although in general the GIPB 2012 mystery

shopper was able to make contact with most IPIs, only a fraction of those reached could provide the investor with a competent response – and within that group, even fewer were able to follow up the project inquiry.

ACP IPIs’ handling of the GIPB 2012 project inquiries suggests that few have embraced the principle that good facilitation means providing responses to all project inquiries at all times. Just seven ACP IPIs showed average results for their handling of the Tourism project inquiry, and just nine showed average results for their handling of the Agribusiness inquiry. Only one IPI, Grenada, was on both of these lists. IPIs achieving at least an average result for project inquiry handling are shown in Figure 10.


Project Inquiry Handling in the Global Context

Around the globe, IPIs’ performance in handling project inquiries fell slightly in GIPB 2012 compared to GIPB 2009 with only one region, Middle East and North Africa, showing an improvement. A breakdown of results by region (Figure 11) shows ACP IPIs’ results were higher than those of IPIs in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, but were behind the global average9.

ACP IPIs’ performance generally was weak when it needed to be proactive: That is, IPIs would reply to the initial inquiry email or answer the

9 Note Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean results also include the relevant ACP IPIs in that region

Figure 10: Top ACP IPIs for Inquiry Handling telephone call to discuss project details, but then would not deliver the response they had promised or would provide a response with very little detail. Just five of the 77 ACP economies’ IPIs (six percent) showed better than a very weak standards for customer care, signifying very little effort to follow up inquiries and do what was necessary to win projects.

Among IPIs in ACP Economies, Declining Performance in Handling Project Inquiries

Table 5 charts the evolution of ACP IPIs’ performance in handling project inquiries, by subregion. After a dip in GIPB 2009 over GIPB

2006, performance in the Caribbean slightly improved in GIPB 2012 and is significantly higher than in other subregions – more than double that of East and Southern Africa, and West and Central Africa. However, the performance is still weak on average, meaning that although it stands out within ACP, there is still major room for improvement. And although the decreases in other subregions’ results from GIPB 2009 to GIPB 2012 are relatively small in absolute terms, the IPIs already were starting

43%

29%

25%

22%

18%

18%

15%

10%

10%

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

OECD•High-Income

Latin•America•and•the•Caribbean

Europe•and•Central•Asia

World

East•Asia•and•the•Pacific

Middle•East• and•North•Africa

African,•Caribbean•and•Pacific

South•Asia

Sub-Saharan•Africa

Availability•And•Contactability•(accounts•for•10•percent)

Responsiveness•And•Handling•(15•percent)

Response•(55•percent)

Customer•Care•(20•percent)

Figure 11: Breakdown of ACP Average Results by Region


from a very low baseline. For most ACP IPIs, the road to improvement is simply to submit a response in the first place. When IPIs offer no information and investors cannot find reliable data elsewhere, those IPIs’ economies stand virtually no chance of attracting investment.

Learning from ACP Peers

Table 6 shows, by subregion, the IPIs whose handling of project inquiries improved most from GIPB 2009 to GIPB 2012 assessments. These IPIs’ overall results remained relatively low because three of them made a response to just one of the inquiries (only the Dominican Republic’s IPI responded to both). However, the responses received showed the IPIs were capable of responding to investors, and need next to improve their consistency as well as quality of response.

A chronic, fatal flaw of weaker IPIs, including many of those in ACP countries, is the simple failure to respond when investors come knocking on their doors with real investment projects in need of a home. There is no lower hanging fruit in the fierce international competition for investment than an investor walking through the door with an inquiry. Yet, in GIPB 2012, 93 percent of ACP IPIs gave no response at all to at least one of the two mystery shopper inquiries. Previous GIPB editions had similar results. The only IPI to have responded to all six inquiries is Senegal’s APIX.

APIX never knows which inquiry will lead to an investment, and it does not want the one inquiry it did not answer to be “the one that got away “, a great investment that went to a competitor simply because the IPI could not be bothered to answer. So, APIX has firm rules in place for every inquiry to get a response and follow-up within fixed time frames. Furthermore, while many IPIs have similar internal rules about replying to inquiries promptly, APIX takes its rule so seriously that it is one of only four official missions of the agency: “Follow up of contacts and evaluation of investment projects.”

Box 8: Senegal: Where Every Customer Is Important

Region GIPB06 GIPB09 GIPB12Overall Change

from GIPB06Change from

GIPB09

African, Caribbean and Pacific 22% 17% 15% -7% 3%Caribbean 36% 27% 28% -8% 1%East and Southerm Africa 24% 18% 12% -12% 8%Pacific 12% 17% 15% 3% 2%West and Central Africa 18% 11% 8% -9% 2%

Table 5: Evolution of ACP Subregional Results for Handling Project Inquiries

Subregion IPI Key Areas of Improvement

Caribbean Dominican Republic

Provided responses to both project inquiries and performed well on availability and contactability

East and Southern Africa Rwanda To Agribusiness inquiry, provided an average level response that attempted to answer key questions.

Pacific Samoa To Agribusiness inquiry, provided an average level response that exhibited strong branding, format, and organization

West and Central Africa MaliTo Tourism inquiry, provided the best response of any ACP IPI across either inquiry. Response was researched and branded well and tried to answer all questions; IPI also followed up on the project.

Table 6: High Improvers


Of particular note was the response from the Investment Promotion Agency of Mali (API-Mali) to the GIPB 2012 Tourism project inquiry. API-Mali was easy to find with contact details placed prominently on its Web site. Personnel were available to discuss the project and provided helpful service on the telephone, then sent a well-branded response document that used thorough research information to attempt to answer all the consultant’s questions in an easily-digestible format. In addition, after submitting the document, API-MALI followed up with the

consultant about the project. The response came close to the 81 percent level of best practice, and set a performance standard to which other ACP IPIs might well aspire.

Where Can ACP IPIs Improve Their Handling of Project Inquiries?

Figure 12 shows the spread of ACP IPIs’ results for handling investors’ project inquiries. With an average result of just 22 percent, IPIs must gain ground to reach the global average. Although a growing share of them maintain a working Web site with some contact details, GIPB 2012

Figure 12: Project Inquiry Handling Service Needs Work


found nearly a third of ACP IPIs still could not be contacted by email or telephone. When an IPI finally was reached, in some cases staff could not converse with the consultant in English and in other cases, a response was promised but never arrived. An improved IPI Web site will help attract FDI only if there is competent staff service to back it up. When an IPI fails to provide a solid, proactive response at the long-listing stage, the investor is not likely to retain the location for its short list. When an IPI shows strong customer care at the initial investment stage, it signals that it would be a helpful, competent partner and increases its chances of winning the project.

Gaps in Project Inquiry Handling Service

ACP IPIs must improve in all areas of project inquiry handling but especially in the two most important ones, response and customer care

Table 7 shows the IPIs in each ACP subregion with highest results for handling project inquiries. Two of these IPIs were not just top performers but also the IPIs that showed most improvement in the subregion over GIPB 2009, proving evidence that it is possible to become a standout in a short time.

Subregion IPI Key Areas of Strength

Caribbean Grenada Provided useful responses to both inquiries. On the Tourism inquiry, showed among the highest standards for any ACP inquiry

East and Southern Africa Seychelles Helpful response for the Agribusiness inquiry, including strong elements of follow up

Pacific Niue Provided good quality service on the Tourism inquiry including helpful responses to questions and attentive follow up on the project.

West and Central Africa Mali ACP benchmark response for Tourism inquiry (for more see previous sections)

Table 7: Best Performers

Figure 13 shows that in the handling of project inquiries by ACP IPIs compared to IPIs in the rest of the world, the quality of investor service deteriorates far earlier in the process for ACP than for non-ACP IPIs.

Figure 13: The Performance Gap Between ACP IPIs: Project Inquiry Handling


“Casting a wide net.” “The shotgun approach.” Such phrases often are used by investment promoters who contend that maximizing their number of investor contacts will maximize their number of genuinely-interested investors. This idea might encourage IPIs to carry out road shows or make big advertising buys which, if not tied to clear and narrow targets, can waste a lot of money. But it should encourage IPIs to respond to every investor inquiry with speed and thoroughness, which is considered international best practice.

In Niue the shotgun approach is simply not an option. With a population of just over 2,000, the country can only employ a single investment promotion official. Despite having, quite literally, the smallest investment promotion department possible, Niue’s Tourism inquiry response in GIPB 2012 was among the strongest in the world. Niue managed this by employing the exact opposite of the shotgun approach: the sniper approach. This IPI refrains from actively pursuing many targets, instead saving its resources until a perfect target comes into sight.

With one person to handle all aspects of investment promotion, from online facilitation and project inquiry handling to helping investors start operations and aftercare, Niue cannot afford to fully answer and follow up on every inquiry it receives. Receiving about two inquiries per month, the lone investment promoter prioritizes those which are in a strategic sector such as Tourism. The promoter also screens inquiries for telltale signs that they may not come from an investor seriously considering foreign locations: use of Yahoo or Hotmail instead of a corporate e-mail, failure to ask for the level of detail that Invest Niue has learned to expect from serious investors. Inquiries of that nature may receive a delayed or partial response. But when Invest Niue believes it is dealing with a serious investor, it brings all its resources to bear on providing a world-class response. Updated information on priority sectors is kept on hand – a luxury made possible by the country’s small size – so that Invest Niue typically can provide a full response within 24 hours. Diligent follow-up ensures that no new questions or concerns go unanswered, and at every step in the process, the investor is encouraged to schedule a visit to the island (quickly arranged given Invest Niue’s very close partnerships with key officials, service providers, and business associations).

Invest Niue’s annual budget for all operational expenses is only about US$50,000 – but its GIPB 2012 results showed that this IPI has found a way to make every dollar count.

Box 9: The Sniper Approach - How Invest Niue Picks Its Investment Opportunities

Figure 14 shows how ACP IPIs in each subregion performed on each theme in GIPB 2012 assessments of project inquiry handling. Relatively-strong results in availability and contactability -- largely attributable to the quality of Web sites – were not translated into good investor service overall. Low customer care results across the region suggest that IPI staffs too often regard sending a project inquiry response as the end of service, when they should consider it the beginning of the IPI’s opportunity to attract and support an investor.

In GIPB 2012, some ACP IPIs in every subregion showed a capacity to provide professional service in some elements of project inquiry handling. However, few IPIs could put all the elements together or maintain strong performance across both project inquiries. As ACP IPIs become able to provide both prompt, comprehensive project inquiry responses and professional, proactive follow-up services, they will strengthen their chances of competing for FDI projects,


Quick Wins for Effective Investor Project Inquiry Handling

Following these tips for handling project inquiries will help IPIs be more effective:

• Be professional at all times. This means providing a response to all inquiries and, where possible, a business case that makes the location stand out from the competition.

• If your IPI has developed a good Web site, use it. Most project inquiries will include questions that can be partially answered with information on your Web site. Do not just direct inquiring investors to the Web site, but do use your online information as the basis of a customized project response.

• Have general materials available on key location factors: labor costs of key positions, names of existing investors, employment regulations or costs for key sectors and subsectors. Provide this quickly to the investor while conducting more specific research to flesh out answers to project inquiry questions.

Specifically for their handling of project inquiries, each subregion’s IPIs might focus more on these areas:

Caribbean – Provide responses in a single report with a table of contents. Organize the response around the company’s initial questions but try to go beyond those questions with supplemental material that illustrates reasons to choose your location. Follow up within 1-2 weeks to offer more information and ask how else the IPI can help.

Figure 14: Performance Across the Four Themes of Project Inquiry Handling


What does best practice project inquiry handling look like in ACP economies? Although these four IPIs had average results overall for project inquiry handling, each achieved a level of performance worth emulating on a key assessment theme. Availability and Contactability – Invest Saint Lucia (www.investstlucia.com)

The simple interface and clear navigation of Invest St Lucia’s Web site allows potential investors to access information quickly on key sectors. The Web site prominently displays key staff members’ contact details including name, title, physical address, telephone number, and email. The site is also easy to find on Internet search engines.

Responsiveness and Handling - Evolving TecKnologies and Enterprise Development Company Limited, Trinidad & Tobago (www.eteck.co.tt)Trinidad & Tobago’s IPI excelled in responsiveness and handling from the GIPB 2012 consultant’s first contact. The IPI staff promptly responded to the initial emails for both project inquiries. The reception staff treated the consultant professionally on the telephone, and connected the consultant to the appropriate project manager on the first try. The interactions suggested the IPI was serious about assisting the investor – a factor that can be as important in attracting investment projects as the location itself.

Response - Investment Promotion Agency of Mali (www.apimali.gov.ml)Without producing anything that other IPIs could not also produce, API-Mali managed to deliver a Tourism inquiry response of a quality few other ACP IPIs achieved. The response was in an easy-to-use Word document format branded with the IPI logo; answers to questions were organized so the investor could find key points and areas of particular interest without reading the whole document. The response included comparative data – a hallmark of global best-practice investment facilitation -- that let the investor benchmark the location against competitors. The response concluded with a short, helpful summary explaining the location’s suitability for the project, and the assistance that API-Mali could provide.

Customer Care -- Grenada Industrial Development Corporation (www.grenadaworld.com)Grenada’s provision of professional customer care in the Tourism inquiry contributed to its high GIPB 2012 results (15 percent higher overall for project inquiry handling than any other ACP IPI). The IPI sent the consultant a response, then checked to be sure it had been received. After a reasonable period, IPI staff followed up, asking if the consultant had other questions and when there might be progress on the project, and offering to help the investor arrange a site visit to the location. A high level of customer care – which even best-practice IPIs sometimes fail to provide – shows an investor that a location is working hard to attract its business and will continue to provide support through project development and beyond.

Box 10: Best ACP Project Inquiry Handling Mix


East and Southern Africa, and the Pacific – Ensure that investors can easily find correct, working contact information on the Web site for IPI staff members that can answer initial questions and serve as liaisons throughout the process. Provide some level of response to all inquiries, with proportionately more time and effort spent on inquiries in key sectors or with particular promise for your location.

West and Central Africa – Ensure that investors can easily contact your IPI by posting correct, working contact information on the Web site. Acknowledge receipt of all investor inquiries and respond to every one appropriately, within the investor’s deadline. Establish a project inquiry-handling system that will ensure that all inquiries are entered into a central log and assigned to a staff member to handle and follow up.

43appendix

aPPendIx

List of Participating National IPIs by Region

Caribbean

Economy IPI Web site

Antigua and Barbuda Antigua and Barbuda Investment Authority www.investantiguabarbuda.org

Bahamas, The Bahamas Investment Authority www.bahamas.gov.bs

Barbados Invest Barbados www.investbarbados.org

Belize Belize Trade and Investment Development Service

www.belizeinvest.org.bz

Dominica Invest Dominica www.investdominica.dm

Dominican Republic Dominican Republic Export and Investment Center

www.cei-rd.gov.do

Grenada Grenada Industrial Development Corporation

www.grenadaworld.com

Guyana Guyana Office for Investment www.goinvest.gov.gy

Haiti Centre de Facilitation des Investissements en Haiti

www.cfihaiti.net

Jamaica Jamaica Promotions Corporation www.jamaicatradeandinvest.org

St. Kitts and Nevis St. Kitts Investment Promotion Agency www.stkittsipa.org

St. Lucia Invest Saint Lucia www.investstlucia.com

St. Vincent and the Grenadines Invest SVG www.investsvg.com

Suriname Ministry of Trade and Industry www.minhi.gov.sr

Trinidad and Tobago Evolving TecKnologies and Enterprise Development Company Limited

www.investtnt.com

East and Southern Africa


Angola National Private Investment Agency www.anip.co.ao

Botswana Botswana Export Development and Investment Authority

www.bedia.co.bw

Burundi Agence Burundaise de Promotion des Investisssements

www.burundi-investment.com

Comoros Agence Nationale de Promotion des Investissements

No Web site


Congo, Dem. Rep. of National Agency for Investment Promotion www.anapi.org

Djibouti National Investment Promotion Agency www.djiboutinvest.dj

Eritrea Eritrea Investment Center No Web site

Ethiopia Ethiopian Investment Agency www.ethioinvest.org

Kenya Kenya Investment Authority www.investmentkenya.com

Lesotho Lesotho National Development Corporation www.lndc.org.ls

Madagascar Economic Development Board of Madagascar

www.edbm.gov.mg

Malawi Malawi Investment Promotion Agency www.malawi-invest.net

Mauritius Board of Investment of Mauritius www.investmauritius.com

Mozambique Investment Promotion Centre www.cpi.co.mz

Rwanda Rwanda Development Board www.rwandainvest.com

Seychelles Seychelles Investment Bureau www.sib.gov.sc

Sudan Ministry of Investment www.sudaninvest.org

Swaziland Swaziland Investment Promotion Authority www.sipa.org.sz

Tanzania Tanzania Investment Centre www.tic.co.tz

Uganda Uganda Investment Authority www.ugandainvest.com

Zambia Zambia Development Agency www.zda.org.zm

Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Investment Authority www.zia.co.zw

Pacific


Cook Islands Business Trade Investment Board www.btib.gov.ck

Fiji Fiji Islands Trade & Investment Bureau www.ftib.org.fj

Kiribati Foreign Investment Promotion Division, Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Cooperatives

www.mcic.gov.ki

Marshall Islands Ministry of Resources and Development www.rmirnd.net

Micronesia, Federated States of Department of Resources and Development www.fsminvest.fm

Nauru Commerce & Business Development Division, Department of Commerce, Industry and Environment

No Web site

Niue InvestNiue www.investniue.com

Palau Palau Foreign Investment Board No Web site

Papua New Guinea Investment Promotion Authority www.ipa.gov.pg

Samoa Industry Development and Investment Promotion Division, Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Labour

www.mcil.gov.ws

45appendix

Solomon Islands Foreign Investment Division www.investsolomons.gov.sb

Timor-Leste TradeInvest Timor-Leste www.timor-leste.gov.tl

Tonga Ministry of Labour, Commerce and Industry www.mic.gov.to

Tuvalu Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

No Web site

Vanuatu Vanuatu Investment Promotion Authority www.investinvanuatu.com

West and Central Africa


Benin Centre de Promotion des Investissements www.cpibenin.com

Burkina Faso La Maison de l'Entreprise du Burkina Faso www.me.bf

Cameroon Agence de Promotion des Investissements No Web site

Cape Verde Cabo Verde Investimentos www.ci.cv

Central African Republic Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Promotion of Small and Medium Sized Business and Industries

No Web site

Chad Office de Promotion Industrielle du Tchad No Web site

Congo, Rep. of Ministere de l'Economie, des Finances et du Budget/Commission Nationale des Investissements

www.mefb-cg.org

Côte d'Ivoire Centre de Promotion des Investissements en Côte d'Ivoire

www.cepici.ci

Equatorial Guinea Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Promotion of Small and Medium Companies

www.ceiba-guinea-ecuatorial.org

Gabon Agence de Promotion des Investissements Privés

www.apip.ga

Gambia Gambia Investment & Export Promotion Agency

www.gipfza.gm

Ghana Ghana Investment Promotion Centre www.gipc.org.gh

Guinea Agence pour la Promotion des Investisse-ments en Guinée

www.apiguinee.org

Guinea-Bissau Direcçao de Promoçao de Investimento Privado

No Web site

Liberia National Investment Commission www.nic.gov.lr

Mali Investment Promotion Agency of Mali www.apimali.gov.ml

Mauritania Commissariat of the Investment Promotion www.investinmauritania.gov.mr

Namibia Namibia Investment Centre, Ministry of Trade and Industry

www.mti.gov.na


Niger Centre de Promotion des Investissements www.investir-au-niger.org

Nigeria Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission www.nipc.gov.ng

São Tomé and Principe Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Cooperação e Comunidades

www.mnecc.gov.st

Senegal National Agency for the Promotion of Investment and Major Projects

www.investinsenegal.com

Sierra Leone Sierra Leone Investment and Export Promo-tion Agency

www.sliepa.org

South Africa Department of Trade and Industry www.thedti.gov.za

Togo Société d’Administration des Zones Franches www.zonefranchetogo.tg

In partnership with

Investment Climate Department of the World Bank Groupthe Investment Climate Department of the World Bank Group helps governments implement reforms to improve their business environment, and encourage and retain investment, thus fostering competitive markets, growth and job creation. Funding is provided by the World Bank Group (IFC, mIGa, and the World Bank) and over fifteen donor partners working through the multi-donor FIas platform.

june 2012 public disclosure authorized investment...

Documents