You are on page 1of 17



Investment Climate | World Bank Group

In partnership with


Why Measure IPIs (Again)?

Every year when they report to their Ministers, the CEOs of national investment promotion intermediaries (IPIs) struggle to articulate the cause-and-effect that justifies their existence, namely, the link between the facilitation and promotion work they do and investment flows into their economies. To judge IPI performance, governments often compare what they spend on promotional efforts against what they gain in FDI: numbers of projects established, jobs created, and dollars invested. To inform this analysis, GIPB gives policymakers a measure of IPI performance by examining one of their most basic investment promotion activities: providing investors with the detailed, accurate, and timely information they need to select an investment location. The GIPB survey evaluates how IPIs respond when potential 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, have given researchers detailed readings of IPI performance. A recent study using GIPB data2 documents a positive and statistically significant relationship between an economys average inflow of FDI during the past six years and the average facilitation performance of its national IPI, as measured by GIPB, during the same period. For example, the study finds that an economy whose IPI earned a GIPB score of, say, 60 percent received on average 25 percent more FDI than an economy whose IPI received a GIPB score of only 45 percent. Plainly put: For IPIs and for their economies success, facilitation performance clearly matters. As IPIs embrace that fact, GIPB becomes a useful tool in their efforts to achieve excellence and secure more foreign investment.

This chapter is part of GIPB 2012: Eyes on Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. The full report will be available in early 2012 at

2 Javorcik, Beata, and Torfinn Harding. Forthcoming. Investment Promotion and FDI Inflows: Quality Matters. Working Paper. Investment Climate Advisory Services, World Bank Group, Washington, D.C.

Chapter 1: Overview

IPIs Must Position Themselves Effectively during the Economic Recovery

GIPB 2012 comes at a time of much debate as to whether the global economy is beginning a steady recovery or a prolonged downturn. Because of the long-term nature of many foreign investment projects, the full effects of project cancellations in 2008 were not clear until 2009 or 2010. The downturns effects on FDI were at the higher end of the 30-40 percent drop forecast in GIPB 2009: The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has estimated the decline in total FDI inflows in 2009 at 40 percent, compared to the 2007 peak3. Still concerned today about what the future holds, many companies that postponed their international expansion plans in the last few years remain reluctant to reenter the market. Although the downturn in FDI projects has meant fewer opportunities for IPIs, it also had the positive effect of forcing some to refocus their efforts. IPIs have had to chase a smaller pool of projects, identifying the sectors and subsectors where they truly have a competitive advantage and packaging their locations offerings in a more targeted and professional way. The FDI slump has highlighted the importance of IPIs putting their best feet forward during the site selection process, when over 90 percent of multinational companies contact the IPIs in locations being considered.4 IPIs that are able to engage early and effectively with companies or their site selection consultants and that can present a compelling business case that sets them above competitor locations will

be in the most advantageous position when those companies are ready to invest. Therefore, a key task for IPIs is to be ready to provide timely and relevant information when investors first make contact. GIPB 2012 provides an insight into how IPIs fulfill that mission within todays new economic realities.

GIPB Evaluates IPI Capacity to Provide Investors the Information They Need
Piloted in 2005 by the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, GIPB was rolled out for the first time in 2006 covering 96 national economies. For GIPB 2009, the number of economies covered was increased to 181. For GIPB 2012, the number of economies has expanded to 189.5 To evaluate IPI performance, GIPB mirrors the process commonly followed by foreign companies: It evaluates IPI Web sites for their usefulness in obtaining the information needed at the beginning of the site selection process, and it contracts site selection consultants to approach IPIs with potential investment projects and assess the quality of their responses. 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 is e-mailed to each IPI CEO and the Ministry to which it reports.6 IPIs pursue their mission to promote FDI and facilitate the investment process through a range of activitiessome proactive (e.g. advertising campaigns and promotional tours) and some reactive (e.g. problem-solving during project

3 4

UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2011.

Development Counsellors International (DCI), July 28, 2008. A View from Corporate America: Winning Strategies in Economic Development Marketing.

Two of the IPIs evaluated, Invest in Brussels and Osloteknopol, are local proxies used to represent the national economies of Belgium and Norway, respectively, in the absence of a national IPI.
5 6

IPIs can request additional copies at

GIPB 2012: Eyes on Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific

implementation). GIPB 2012 does not cover all IPI activities. However, its findings about how well IPIs provide information to prospective investors, one of their most critical functions, have broad implications for every aspect of investment promotion. GIPB scores are presented as an index, with 100 percent being the highest possible score. The two components of the evaluation are: A Web site review, worth 50 percent of the total score, assesses the content, promotional effectiveness, design, and information architecture of each IPIs Web site. Two investment project inquiries, each worth 25 percent of the total score, were simulated, one in the tourism sector and one in agribusiness. Using a mystery shopper approach, a site selection consultant asked IPIs for information about two investment projects on behalf of an unnamed potential investor. IPI responses were then evaluated for their information provision and relationship management with foreign companies. The tourism project inquiry evaluated IPIs at the short list stage of the process, where the investor had already carried out preliminary research. The sector was chosen because nearly every economy in the world seeks to promote some type of investment in the tourism sector. It was chosen also because of tourisms potential to create a large volume of jobs, and thus have a positive economic impact, particularly in developing countries. The inquiry concerned a hotel development project, which was presented to IPIs in developed economies as an ultra-luxury resort and to those in developing economies as a four-star, city business hotel. The agribusiness inquiry focused on information provision at the long-listing stage. Given global

concerns about food security and the increasing cost of staples, this is a key sector for most economies, and especially for developing economies. This inquiry concerned a seed facility for tubers. It was presented to IPIs in developed economies as focusing primarily on R&D, and to IPIs in developing economies as focusing on crop production. Web Site Assessment: Methodology and Scoring For an IPI serious about attracting investors, an online presence is both necessary and cost-effective. Best-practice IPI Web sites clearly showcase the advantages of a location while demonstrating an understanding of investor needs and a commitment to meeting those needs throughout the site selection process. GIPB looks at four main characteristics of IPI Web sites: Information Architecture: How easy is it to find the Web site and navigate 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 Web site market the location and the IPIs services?

Chapter 1: Overview

A weighting system was applied to reflect the importance of each theme from the investors perspective. Thus, Web site content is the most heavily weighted characteristic at 50 percent. Inquiry Handling Assessment: Methodology and Scoring Providing best practice handling of project inquiries is generally more challenging for IPIs than getting a Web site right. But it is at the core of investment promotion and gives an IPI its best opportunity to directly influence investment decisions. To gauge how effectively IPIs respond to inquiries from potential foreign investors, GIPB looks at four main characteristics of their inquiry handling:

Customer Care: To what extent does the IPI follow up with the potential investor after providing its response? The response submitted by IPIs was the most heavily weighted element (55 percent) in the inquiry handling assessment.

ACP Overview: Matching Investment Potential with Actual Results Requires Facilitation
In the competition to attract FDI, many IPIs in African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) economies must manage challenging circumstances, such as low-income economies, land-locked or insular geographies, and political instabilities that can undermine investment promotion efforts. However, one critical element in attracting FDI is within the power of IPIs to change: The face they show to the investment world, online and when handling project inquiries. Scarce or unreliable business information about a location is the first barrier to getting companies to consider it. By providing comprehensive, relevant, up-to-date business information, IPIs can lower that barrier and give investors a glimpse of the locations true potential. In fact, Javorcik and Harding (forthcoming) show clearly that a well-functioning IPI can actually have the greatest effect on FDI inflows in those countries with a negative image to overcome. 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, offering proof that professionalism and focus can be more important than budget and staff size, and that quality investment facilitation is within reach for all ACP economies. As more ACP IPIs follow the examples of these regional top performers, they

Availability and Contactability: How easy is it to find the Web site and contact information for the IPI online and to contact a knowledgeable project manager? Responsiveness and Handling: How professionally does IPI staff engage with the prospective investor by e-mail and telephone? Response: How relevant, thorough, and professional is the IPIs response to specific inquiries? Does it promote the location well?

GIPB 2012: Eyes on Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific

will move closer to realizing their goal of attracting FDI. GIPB 2012 found that IPIs in all four ACP subregionsthe Caribbean, East and Southern Africa, West and Central Africa, and the Pacificmade gains in standards of service. As Figure 1 shows, the strongest subregion is clearly the Caribbean, with the top six performers of all ACP economies. 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 declines in performance in handling project inquiries from investors. Figure 1: Overall Top Six IPIs in ACP

competitively against global standards in Web sites. However, the overall average score of 31 percent for ACP economies was 10 percentage points below the world average. Figure 2: Breakdown of GIPB 2012 Average Scores per ACP Subregion, Compared to OECD High-Income and the World

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 inquiry handling compared to GIPB 2009. As shown in Figure 2, ACP economies generally performed

In GIPB 2012, 32 ACP IPIs (42 percent) received at least good Web site scores (61 percent or above) including some at best-practice level. But most of these leading IPIs failed to provide equally strong service in inquiry handling. An exception to this is the top ACP overall performer, the Grenada Industrial Development Corporation, which maintains both an excellent Web site and a competent inquiry handling service. GIPB 2012 also found 10 ACP IPI Web sites that were very weak, plus 9 IPIs with no online presence at all.7 In GIPBs two inquiry handling assessments, ACP IPIs averaged scores below 16 percent. This

7 IPIs without a Web site were those of Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Nauru, Palau, and Tuvalu. See Appendix for full IPI names.

Chapter 1: Overview

means that for two sectors critically important to most ACP economies, agribusiness and tourism, IPIs showed very weak handling of investor information requests, that is, a score of 20 percent or less. In fact, 71 of the 77 IPIs assessed (92 percent) did not submit a response to at least one of the two project inquiries. Only seven IPIs received a rating of average (41-60 percent) or above for their responses to the tourism inquiry. For the agribusiness inquiry, only 9 IPIs performed at an average level or above. With such poor facilitation, ACP IPIs will find it hard to advance to the next stage of consideration when competing against the worlds higher performing IPIs. However, there are several cost-effective steps which ACP IPIs can take without external assistance to improve their competitiveness. The following performance checklists provide a starting point. 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. Checklist for Effective Inquiry Handling: 1. Design and enforce two simple protocols: One for staff, which ensures that all inquiry responses are professional and prompt; and one for managers to ensure oversight of the inquiry pipeline and quality control of responses. 2. Provide a response for every inquiry that tries to answer all questions asked, performing additional research as needed.

Box 1: How Grenada Topped the Ranks of ACP IPIs with a Small Team

At the Grenada Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC), just 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? By focusing on speed and teamwork. Knowing it must distinguish itself from other small and relatively remote Caribbean countries competing for FDI, GIDC set about making speed its competitive advantage. All informational inquiriesand it receives one or two a day, on averagemust receive an initial response within 48 hours, with the CEO copied on every response. All inquiries regarding specific investment projects also must be acknowledged within 48 hours, and must be given a full response by a project manager within 5 working days. GIDC takes the same approach to its Web site, requiring that content be updated every week. The IPI can provide lightning-quick responses because it has a deep store of quality content on hand. GIDCs one-person research department developed comprehensive, sector-specific information by working closely with ministries and private sector partners to find and package data. The information is shared with the IPIs investment promotion department and stored in a common server. The agencys entire staff knows what data is available and can easily access it. Further, GIDC involves the whole team in helping the lone researcher maintain and augment the data stores. The IPIs high-velocity approach to investor service has paid off. In April 2009, when a St. Lucian condiment manufacturer wanted to get a facility up and running by the end of the year, it came to GIDC in part because of its can-do reputation. 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 might never have won Grenada the investment, which brought the economy $5 million in capital investment, or about 0.5 percent of the economys GDP for that year.

GIPB 2012: Eyes on Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific

3. Make sure e-mail and telephone lines are working at all times and answered promptly during reasonable business hours. Providing quality service both online and offline must be the goal of every IPI. Without a Web site that can interest and inform the investor, inquiries may be few and far between. At the same time, if the IPI cannot respond to inquiries by delivering quality, hands-on service to investors, then there is limited reason to attract them through the Web site. GIPB 2012 results challenge ACP IPIs to increase proficiency in both aspects of facilitation, especially where better performance would add the most value for investors.

Central Africa gained some ground after a significant decline in GIPB 2009, yet most scores remained very weak with just five of 25 IPIs (those of the Gambia, Ghana, Mali, Senegal, and South Africa) rated average or better.

Quick Improvement for ACP IPIs is Achievable

Figure 3 shows the 24 ACP IPIs that made the biggest improvements from GIPB 2009 to GIPB 2012. Examining three that made the most substantial progress provides a benchmark for what is realistically achievable. The St. Kitts Investment Promotion Agency ( has shown substantial improvement (31 percentage points) 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. The score of the Investment Promotion Agency of Mali ( rose 52 percentage points on the strength of a good Web site and service approaching best practice level for handling the tourism inquiry (for which its score, 72 percent, was the highest ACP score for either GIPB 2012 project inquiry). Mali stands as an example of how to maintain both a helpful Web site and a strong capacity to handle project inquiries.

Since GIPB 2006, Progress is Slow

Table 1 considers the performance of ACP IPIs by subregion between GIPB 2006 and GIPB 2012. In this period, Caribbean IPIs improved by six percentage points, a gain mostly reflecting improved use of the Internet for promotion, with only slight progress in handling project inquiries. In the same period, IPI performance in East and Southern Africa remained almost stationary, as improvements in Web sites were offset by poorer inquiry handling. IPI scores in the Pacific, after improvement from GIPB 2006 to GIPB 2009, fell in GIPB 2012. This is 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 Table 1: Evolution of Overall Scores for ACP Subregions
Region GIPB06 GIPB09


Change from GIPB06

Change from GIPB09

ACP Average Caribbean East and Southern Africa Pacific West and Central Africa

31% 43% 32% 26% 27%

29% 38% 36% 35% 18%

31% 49% 33% 27% 20%

0% +6% +1% +1% -7%

+2% +11% -3% -8% +2%

Chapter 1: Overview

Figure 3: Biggest Improvers from GIPB 2009 to GIPB 2012

The Sierra Leone Investment and Export Promotion Agency (, which had no Web site in GIPB 2009, managed to develop a good Web site by GIPB 2012 (and raise its score by 32 percentage points) despite its recent past of political instability. Sierra Leones circumstances make it especially important that its IPI Web site help rebuild image, stress that the location is open for business and reiterate the IPIs readiness to support investors throughout project inquiry and implementation.

Evolving TecKnologies and Enterprise Development Company, and only three IPIs were below average. When IPIs perform below average, investors may remain unaware of the locations strengths and drop them from consideration, especially in developing countries where good information is hard to come by. Poor service by IPIs at this stage also gives investors reason to doubt whether they will receive adequate support during project implementation, and this in itself can discourage them from investing. As one investor participating in a GIPB focus group put it: If the first time we have contact with the IPI it fails to respond or appears difficult to work with, we regard that as not boding well for any further engagement with that location.

What is the Pattern of ACP Performance in GIPB 2012?

Figure 4 shows the range of scores among ACP IPIs. The number of IPIs that reached at least the average level of performance (41 percent or higher) 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 clearly the place to get the best assistance: Two IPIs in the region earned overall good scores, Grenada Industrial Development Corporation and Trinidad and Tobagos

Most ACP IPIs Show Gains in Online Information but Major Gaps in Inquiry Handling
Though ACP IPIs overall have significantly raised the quality of their Web sites, inquiry handling remains a major concern. In terms of Web site scores, the good news is that GIPB 2012 found many ACP IPIs scoring well on content and


GIPB 2012: Eyes on Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific

Figure 4: Good Practice IPIs Only Emerging in the Caribbean

promotional effectiveness (see Figure 5), the more difficult themes to score highly in the Web site assessment. Given this capacity, these IPIs should be able to provide the same quality of content within an inquiry response, but in GIPB 2012 they did not. If information is in hand but not effectively employed, management should look for and address other shortcomings, such as an absence of internal systems or gaps in staff competencies. Figure 5: IPIs tend to Score Weakly Where the Tasks are More Advanced

To compete for FDI, IPIs that have sector information online should use it more proactively in responding to project inquiries and not simply refer investors to the Web site. Similarly, IPIs should avoid simply referring investors to other organizations where the IPI cannot control the quality of the interaction, and instead position themselves as the one-stop shop for investors seeking information.

Chapter 1: Overview


Priorities for Moving Forward

ACP subregions are worlds apart not only geographically but in investment promotion practice as well. Thus, strategic areas where ACP IPIs can improve differ by subregion: 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 find business information, these IPIs should focus on conducting more information gathering and presenting this data to investors online. In the Pacific and in East and Southern Africa, while IPI 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 more utilitarian Web site backed up by professional staff dealing with inquiries is far preferable to a glossy Web 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 detail of information that matches the quality of information online. As location factors for Caribbean economies tend to be similar, their IPIs should also 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 the locations priority sectors. Prioritize gathering market information. While other IPI tasks may be more visible, political or urgent, market information is the cornerstone activity of serious investment promotion. Spotlessly accurate, regularly updated data is the raw material for every other activity that IPIs undertake.

Box 2: Checklist of 14 Steps to Becoming a Top IPI in Investment Facilitation. 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 Culture 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 Knowledge 8. 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 Facilitation 11. 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. GIPB 2012: Eyes on Africa, 13. 12 Demonstrate professionalism andthe Caribbean and thethe Web site with frequent news updates of importance to investors. dynamism through Pacific 14. Follow detailed guidelines on the content, style, timeframe, and quality assurance of inquiry responses.

List of Participating National IPIs by Region
Caribbean Economy Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas, The Barbados Belize Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Guyana Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Suriname Trinidad and Tobago IPI Antigua and Barbuda Investment Authority Bahamas Investment Authority Invest Barbados Belize Trade and Investment Development Service Invest Dominica Dominican Republic Export and Investment Center Grenada Industrial Development Corporation Guyana Office for Investment Centre de Facilitation des Investissements en Haiti Jamaica Promotions Corporation St. Kitts Investment Promotion Agency Invest Saint Lucia Invest SVG Ministry of Trade and Industry Evolving TecKnologies and Enterprise Development Company Limited Web site

East and Southern Africa Economy Angola Botswana Burundi Comoros IPI National Private Investment Agency Botswana Export Development and Investment Authority Agence Burundaise de Promotion des Investisssements Agence Nationale de Promotion des Investissements Web site No Web site



Congo, Dem. Rep. of Djibouti Eritrea Ethiopia Kenya Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Rwanda Seychelles Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Pacific Economy Cook Islands Fiji Kiribati

National Agency for Investment Promotion National Investment Promotion Agency Eritrea Investment Center Ethiopian Investment Agency Kenya Investment Authority Lesotho National Development Corporation Economic Development Board of Madagascar Malawi Investment Promotion Agency Board of Investment of Mauritius Investment Promotion Centre Rwanda Development Board Seychelles Investment Bureau Ministry of Investment Swaziland Investment Promotion Authority Tanzania Investment Centre Uganda Investment Authority Zambia Development Agency Zimbabwe Investment Authority No Web site

IPI Business Trade Investment Board Fiji Islands Trade & Investment Bureau Foreign Investment Promotion Division, Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Cooperatives Ministry of Resources and Development Department of Resources and Development Commerce & Business Development Division, Department of Commerce, Industry and Environment InvestNiue Palau Foreign Investment Board Investment Promotion Authority Industry Development and Investment Promotion Division, Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Labour

Web site

Marshall Islands Micronesia, Federated States of Nauru No Web site

Niue Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa No Web site


GIPB 2012: Eyes on Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific

Solomon Islands Timor-Leste Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu West and Central Africa

Foreign Investment Division TradeInvest Timor-Leste Ministry of Labour, Commerce and Industry Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Vanuatu Investment Promotion Authority No Web site

Benin Burkina Faso Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic

Centre de Promotion des Investissements La Maison de l'Entreprise du Burkina Faso Agence de Promotion des Investissements Cabo Verde Investimentos Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Promotion of Small and Medium Sized Business and Industries Office de Promotion Industrielle du Tchad Ministere de l'Economie, des Finances et du Budget/Commission Nationale des Investissements

Web site No Web site No Web site

Chad Congo, Rep. of

No Web site

C te d'Ivoire Equatorial Guinea Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Liberia Mali Mauritania Namibia

Centre de Promotion des Investissements en C te d'Ivoire Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Promotion of Small and Medium Companies Agence de Promotion des Investissements Priv s Gambia Investment & Export Promotion Agency Ghana Investment Promotion Centre Agence pour la Promotion des Investissements en Guin e Direc ao de Promo ao de Investimento Privado National Investment Commission Investment Promotion Agency of Mali Commissariat of the Investment Promotion Namibia Investment Centre, Ministry of Trade and Industry No Web site



Niger Nigeria S o Tom and Principe Senegal Sierra Leone South Africa Togo

Centre de Promotion des Investissements Minist rio dos Neg cios Estrangeiros, Coopera o e Comunidades National Agency for the Promotion of Investment and Major Projects Sierra Leone Investment and Export Promotion Agency Department of Trade and Industry

Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission

Socit dAdministration des Zones Franches


GIPB 2012: Eyes on Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific