june 30, 1998 annex 1: miga member and signatory … · bank efforts began with a confidential...

39

145 MEMBER COUNTRIESINDUSTRIAL—20

AustriaBelgiumCanadaDenmarkFinland

FranceGermanyGreeceIrelandItaly

JapanLuxembourgNetherlandsNorwayPortugal

SpainSwedenSwitzerlandUnited KingdomUnited States

DEVELOPING—125

South AfricaSudanSwazilandTanzaniaTogoTunisiaUgandaZambiaZimbabwe

ASIA/PACIFICBangladeshChinaFijiIndiaIndonesiaKorea, Republic ofMalaysiaMicronesia, Federated

States ofNepalPakistanPalauPapua New GuineaPhilippinesSamoaSingaporeSri LankaVanuatuVietnam

EUROPE/CENTRAL ASIAAlbaniaArmeniaAzerbaijan

BelarusBosnia-HerzegovinaBulgariaCroatiaCyprusCzech RepublicEstoniaGeorgiaHungaryKazakhstanKyrgyz RepublicLithuaniaMacedonia, former

Yugoslav Republic ofMoldovaPolandRomaniaRussian FederationSlovak RepublicSloveniaTurkeyTurkmenistanUkraineUzbekistan

LATIN AMERICA/CARIBBEANArgentinaBahamas, TheBarbadosBelizeBoliviaBrazilChile

AFRICAAlgeriaAngolaBeninBotswanaBurundiBurkina FasoCameroonCape VerdeCongo, Democratic

Republic ofCongo, Republic ofCôte d’IvoireEgypt, Arab

Republic ofEquatorial GuineaEritreaEthiopiaGambia, TheGhanaGuineaKenyaLesothoLibyaMadagascarMalawiMaliMauritaniaMauritiusMoroccoMozambiqueNamibiaNigeriaSenegalSeychellesSierra Leone

17 COUNTRIES IN THE PROCESS OF FULFILLING MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTSINDUSTRIAL—1

Australia

DEVELOPING—16

AFRICACentral African

RepublicChadGabonGuinea-BissauNigerRwanda

ASIA/PACIFICCambodiaMongoliaSolomon IslandsThailand

EUROPE/CENTRAL ASIALatviaTajikistanYugoslavia, Federal

Republic of(Serbia/Montenegro)

ColombiaCosta RicaDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasJamaicaNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruSt. LuciaSt. Vincent and the

GrenadinesTrinidad and TobagoUruguayVenezuela

MIDDLE EASTBahrainIsraelJordanKuwaitLebanonMaltaOmanQatarSaudi ArabiaUnited Arab EmiratesYemen, Republic of

LATIN AMERICA/CARIBBEANSt. Kitts and NevisSuriname

MIDDLE EASTSyrian Arab Republic

June 30, 1998

ANNEX 1: MIGA MEMBER AND SIGNATORY COUNTRIES

MIGA MEMBER AND SIGNATORY COUNTRIES

MIGA: THE FIRST TEN YEARS40

Net Liabilityand

Host Country Gross Liability Reinsurance Net Liability Commitments Commitments

US$000 % of Total (US$000) (US$000) % of Total (US$000) (US$000)

Russia 305,748 10.68 131,191 174,557 7.84 10,000 184,557Argentina 236,102 8.25 69,380 166,723 7.49 4,500 171,223Peru 213,796 7.47 52,724 161,072 7.24 161,072Brazil 194,973 6.81 27,499 167,473 7.53 167,473Pakistan 169,820 5.93 16,793 153,027 6.88 153,027Turkey 141,981 4.96 23,640 118,341 5.32 118,341China 131,132 4.58 25,778 105,355 4.73 105,355Jamaica 104,000 3.63 7,200 96,800 4.35 96,800Colombia 93,000 3.25 31,500 61,500 2.76 61,500Indonesia 80,401 2.81 18,866 61,535 2.77 61,535Papua New Guinea 74,920 2.62 25,929 48,991 2.20 48,991Venezuela 68,500 2.39 7,050 61,450 2.76 61,450Kyrgyz Republic 64,650 2.26 64,650 2.91 64,650Costa Rica 64,483 2.25 11,858 52,625 2.36 52,625Bolivia 62,500 2.18 43,750 18,750 0.84 18,750Bangladesh 59,202 2.07 59,202 2.66 59,202Uganda 53,976 1.89 14,244 39,732 1.79 39,732Ecuador 52,000 1.82 6,000 46,000 2.07 46,000Kuwait 50,000 1.75 50,000 2.25 50,000Mali 50,000 1.75 50,000 2.25 50,000Slovak Republic 43,460 1.52 43,460 1.95 43,460Mozambique 40,000 1.40 12,000 28,000 1.26 28,000Uruguay 38,000 1.33 11,400 26,600 1.20 26,600Philippines 37,500 1.31 37,500 1.69 37,500Romania 35,226 1.23 10,568 24,658 1.11 24,658Nepal 32,827 1.15 14,614 18,214 0.82 18,214Chile 31,264 1.09 9,379 21,885 0.98 21,885Guyana 30,600 1.07 30,600 1.37 30,600Czech Republic 30,390 1.06 21,273 9,117 0.41 9,117Ukraine 30,000 1.05 9,000 21,000 0.94 21,000Honduras 25,920 0.91 25,920 1.16 25,920Poland 24,327 0.85 24,327 1.09 24,327Equatorial Guinea 24,000 0.84 7,200 16,800 0.75 16,800Uzbekistan 20,406 0.71 20,406 0.92 20,406Azerbaijan 19,224 0.67 4,957 14,267 0.64 14,267Dominican Republic 18,000 0.63 5,400 12,600 0.57 12,600Kazakhstan 17,933 0.63 17,933 0.81 17,933Guatemala 12,939 0.45 5,918 7,021 0.32 7,021South Africa 12,300 0.43 12,300 0.55 12,300Algeria 10,000 0.35 3,000 7,000 0.31 7,000El Salvador 9,900 0.35 9,900 0.44 9,900India 9,600 0.34 6,720 2,880 0.13 2,880Sri Lanka 7,086 0.25 7,086 0.32 7,086Guinea 6,036 0.21 6,036 0.27 6,036Bulgaria 5,159 0.18 5,159 0.24 5,159Paraguay 5,000 0.17 1,500 3,500 0.16 3,500Kenya 4,700 0.16 4,700 0.21 4,700Cape Verde 2,400 0.08 2,400 0.11 2,400Angola 2,310 0.08 2,310 0.10 2,310Georgia 2,134 0.07 2,134 0.10 2,134Madagascar 1,663 0.06 1,663 0.07 1,663Tanzania 303 0.01 303 0.01 303

Total 2,861,793 100.00 636,330 2,225,463 100.00 14,500 2,239,963

ANNEX 2: RISK PROFILE OF OUTSTANDING CONTRACTS,FISCAL 1998

41MIGA’S CREATION AND EVOLUTION

* Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the World Bank; Secretary-General of the International Centre forSettlement of Investment Disputes. The author was in charge of establishing the organization that came to be knownas MIGA.1. For a detailed history, see Ibrahim Shihata, MIGA and Foreign Investment: Origins, Operations, Policies and BasicDocuments of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, 31-106 (Martinus Nihoff Publishers, 1988).

41

APPENDIX:MIGA’S CREATION AND EVOLUTION

A PERSONAL ACCOUNTby

Ibrahim F.I. Shihata*

Introduction

The idea of establishing an international agency to promote equity foreign invest-ment through the offering of guarantees against noncommercial risks is not new. It origi-nated in the World Bank in the second year of its operations and survived several abortiveattempts to implement it in the 1960s, the early 1970s, and the early 1980s, as well aspervasive skepticism by Bank members, staff, and other experts, before it became a reality inApril 1988.1 Ten years after its establishment, MIGA has clearly proved its usefulness. As ofmid-1998, MIGA has concluded 323 guarantee contracts for investments in 52 countries,the total value of which has exceeded $3.8 billion, in addition to extending many types ofadvisory and informational services. It has pioneered new types of political risk insuranceand reinsurance schemes. And it has established an unprecedented network of cooperationwith national agencies and private providers for this specialized service, which was witnessinga decline before and during the period of MIGA’s establishment. Interestingly, the majorproblem MIGA seems to be facing now, contrary to the initial expectations of many, is thatthe demand for its services by far exceeds its capacity to supply it in full.

The Establishment of MIGA

It is no exaggeration to state that MIGA owes its establishment primarily to thepersistent efforts of a few World Bank staff members. While these efforts continued inter-mittently without positive results for a period spanning three and a half decades, they laterculminated in the successful creation of this agency as we know it today. For the reasonsdetailed below, any study of these efforts should distinguish between the attempts madebefore and after August 1983.


1. The Pre-August 1983 Attempts

One of the main purposes of the World Bank, according to its Articles of Agreementis “to promote private foreign investment.”2 In early 1948, Bank staff realized that such apurpose could be well served by offering foreign investment guarantees against noncommercialrisks. While the Bank can make guarantees directly for private loans against any type of risk,its Articles did not envisage guarantees for equity investment. For more than 35 years, theBank spent considerable efforts on its attempt to establish a separate agency to provide suchpolitical risk insurance for equity investment. Yet until late 1983, these efforts resulted onlyin reports, draft articles of agreement, and further studies.

Bank efforts began with a confidential report dated March 3, 1948 titled “ProposedPlan for Guaranteeing Investment Against Transfer Risk and Certain Other Risks.”3 The ideadid not seem to attract much attention but it re-emerged two years later in a staff memoran-dum dated October 1950, which that suggested that the Bank could stimulate private in-vestment by adopting several measures, including the investment of a certain percentage ofits earnings in an “insurance fund” to guarantee foreign investments against risks such asnationalization without compensation, war, and restrictions on the conversion of currencies.4

The concept of international trust funds, such as the hundreds of funds now administered bythe Bank, was not yet known, so it was suggested in that memorandum that the Bank couldperform this insurance function “directly or through a subsidiary.” Again, not much attentionwas given to the staff proposal. Only in 1961 did the Bank (and IFC) establish a “workingparty” to consider seriously an “investment insurance program” after many proposals to thesame effect were made, on a regional or universal level, in the Council of Europe, the U.S.Government and Congress, the OECD, the ICC, and the International Association for thePromotion and Protection of Private Foreign Investments (APPI), among others.5 Also in1961, the OECD formally asked the Bank to undertake a study of possible multilateralinvestment guarantee schemes. Later, in his address before the Annual Meeting of the Bank’sBoard of Governors in September 1961, the then President of the Bank, Eugene Black,announced for the first time that several proposals were indeed being studied. To eliminateany misunderstanding, he emphasized, however, that such studies were being undertaken“without preconceived ideas about their usefulness or feasibility.” A few months later, inJanuary 1962, a detailed staff study was distributed to the Executive Directors withoutexpressing any views concerning the issues involved. It nevertheless generated considerableinterest outside the Bank and led to an OECD Secretariat report in 1964, followed by a1965 detailed proposal for the establishment of a multilateral investment guarantee corpo-ration, which was submitted to the Bank for further consideration.

2. See the Articles of Agreement of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Article I.3. The draft memorandum written without attribution was referred to later in the Bank’s files as a memorandum ofthe (first) general counsel, Mr. C.A. McLain.4. Staff memorandum titled “Means of Stimulating Private Foreign Investment: Specific Suggestions,” dated October 24,1950 (without attribution). The terms “insurance” and “guarantee” were used interchangeably in that memorandum (asthey are used in this chapter).5. For references to these proposals and other proposals subsequently mentioned see Shihata, note 1, supra at 31-36and accompanying notes.

43

Under the OECD proposal, less developed countries would not be required to sharein meeting the losses of the projected corporation. They would contribute only to adminis-trative expenses. Losses were to be borne by capital-exporting members proportionately tothe extent of the investments sponsored by each country for the benefit of its nationals. Eachguarantee made by the corporation would be approved by the country where the investmentoriginated. With encouragement also from the then newly established UNCTAD, the Bankcirculated in December 1965 a report to its Executive Directors on the “Principal Points forConsideration in Connection with Multilateral Insurance Guarantees.”

Sixty sessions of the Bank’s Executive Directors over a seven-year period did notsucceed, however, in turning these principal points into an agreed convention. Guidelinesfor the preparation of a draft convention were drawn up by Bank management on July 5,1966. The first draft convention was then issued as a staff document on November 30 of thesame year.6 A year of discussion by Executive Directors did not display much support, inspite of endorsements emanating from UNCTAD, OECD, ICC, and APPI.

The 1966 draft Articles of Agreement basically followed the principles of the 1965OECD proposal. It opened membership in the projected agency to both industrial anddeveloping countries, made the members of the Bank’s Board of Governors ex officio mem-bers of MIGA’s Council and the Bank’s President ex officio chairman of MIGA’s ExecutiveBoard. Only countries designated as “developing countries” were to be eligible as host coun-tries of the investments to be covered. MIGA’s losses and administrative expenses ultimatelywere to be met out of the premiums paid by the insured investors. Early losses were to beshared on a pro rata basis only by those members that sponsored investments for insuranceby MIGA, and initial administrative cost was to be met from a refundable advance contrib-uted by members “other than developing countries.” These contributing members also wereto predominate in the composition of MIGA’s Board of Directors. The 9 to 11 Board mem-bers were to include only 4 representatives of developing countries, while the rest would beelected by other members according to the amount of insurance sponsored by each of them,with the right of any member sponsoring 15 percent of all MIGA’s insurance to appoint adirector. In its operations, it was clear, as the draft explicitly stated, that the agency would beacting “as the agent of and on account of” the sponsoring members, a feature inherited fromthe earlier OECD proposal that generated much opposition to the draft from developingcountries.

Discussion of the 1966 draft led to the preparation of a revised draft that was sub-mitted to the Bank’s Executive Directors in August 1968.7 The new draft provided someflexibility without departing from the basic features of the earlier draft.8 A new president ofthe Bank, Robert McNamara, made it clear, however, that the Bank’s further interest in the

MIGA’S CREATION AND EVOLUTION

6. IBRD Doc. R66-156.7. IBRD Doc. M68-156, August 19, 1968.8. For differences between the 1966 draft and the 1968 draft see Shihata, supra note 1 at 40-42.


subject would depend on the interest shown by its members. Such interest was slow tocome. The Executive Directors’ Committee of the Whole resumed its meetings in March1970 to examine the new draft only after 36 favorable responses were received over a seven-month period. Divergent views were expressed in the lengthy discussions that ensued onmany issues—notably, the lack of financial participation and loss sharing by developing coun-tries, subrogation of MIGA to the rights of compensated investors, voting structure in thegoverning bodies, organizational link with the Bank, and the settlement of disputes betweenMIGA and its members. While some Directors requested the removal of the subject fromthe agenda altogether, it was finally agreed to request that the staff to prepare yet anotherdraft that would have “the widest possible acceptance.”

The new draft was submitted by the staff in February 1972 and demonstrated greaterinnovation on a number of details.9 In particular, it introduced the principle of financialparticipation in MIGA by all its members, through the establishment of a “Common Work-ing Capital Fund” to meet administrative expenses in the absence of adequate income and tomake “advances” to members “in connection with the discharge of their obligations.” Thedraft also exempted host countries from the obligation to recognize MIGA’s subrogation tothe rights of insured investors that it compensated if the host country had agreed to submitits disputes with the investor to arbitration before the International Centre for Settlement ofInvestment Disputes (ICSID). The draft changed the composition of MIGA board to10 Directors, half of whom would represent developing countries and account for 35 per-cent of the total votes. It also allowed MIGA’s Council, rather than the World Bank Presi-dent, to decide at any time to appoint its managing director, as chairman of the Board, tofurther weaken the linkage between the agency and the Bank, which was much feared bymany developing countries’ representatives. Although such changes, among others, mighthave allowed for more productive discussions in the Bank’s Board or the Bank’s Committeeof the Whole, the President of the Bank saw no good prospects for such discussions. The draftwas circulated to members with a memorandum simply outlining issues on which no con-sensus was reached in earlier discussions, without suggesting any specific action. The wholeidea was practically shelved until a new Bank President was appointed in 1981.

Unlike his predecessors, the new Bank President, A.W. Clausen, was enthusiasticabout establishing of an international investment insurance agency. The earlier skepticism ofthe former general counsel, Aron Broches, gave way to a suggestion from the new generalcounsel, Heribert Golsong, in 1981 that Mr. Clausen announce in his first speech before theBoard of Governors the revival of work on a new initiative. With this done, Mr. Golsongissued an “interim report” on an international investment insurance scheme (MIIS) which,after further consultations, led to the preparation of a formal staff report titled the “Multilat-eral Investment Insurance Agency,” which was submitted by Mr. Clausen to the ExecutiveDirectors in July 1982.10

9. IBRD Doc. Sec. M72-121, March 2, 1972.10. See IBRD Doc. R82-225, July 14, 1982.

45

Although presented as a “preliminary outline,” the report introduced a number ofnew proposals for the projected MIIA. The agency would require limited or no capital con-tributions from members but would receive a “one-time contribution” from the Bank or asmall capital contributed by all members only to meet initial administrative expenses. Laterexpenses and potential losses would be met through the reserves built up by accumulatedincome, mainly from premiums paid by investors, with the “sponsoring countries” ultimatelyresponsible for meeting residual losses. The agency’s link with the Bank would otherwisetake the form of a management contract, which would not undermine the agency’s indepen-dence. The agency would cooperate with national insurance agencies rather than build an“unwieldy international bureaucracy” of its own. Votes in the governing boards would dependon the volume of investment insurance sponsored by (capital exporting) members, whilesome unclearly defined role is reserved for host countries. Subrogation, international arbitra-tion, and host country cooperation were built on the requirement of approval of the hostcountry of each investment prior to its insurance, or alternatively, by requesting investors toinclude ICSID clauses in their contracts with host countries and exhausting this remedybefore obtaining a final settlement from the agency. A new convention would also require asmaller number of ratifications for its entry into force. Discussions of this report resulted,however, only in agreement to continue to examine the matter. Seven staff studies wereprepared in the following year, with the Bank’s now discouraged “Managing Committee”deciding that it should be “completely neutral” and directing staff to refrain from preparinga new draft convention.11

2. The Post-August 1983 Attempts

When I joined the Bank on August 1, 1983, as its general counsel, I was convincedthat the need for an international agency to encourage foreign investment was greater thanever. Such investment not only was concentrated in a few countries; its volume had startedan historical decline. An agency supported by the World Bank and receiving the full confidenceof both capital exporting and importing countries could, in my view at the time, reverse thattrend to the benefit of both sides. In particular, it could play a significant role by rebuildingconfidence in investing in developing countries and by breaking the psychological barrierthat magnified political risks. I neither shared the concerns expressed in past Bank discus-sions nor the skepticism that characterized its studies, which I closely followed in my earliercareers.12 On the contrary, my direct involvement in the efforts which led many years earlierto the establishment of the Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corporation, the only inter-

11. The seven studies distributed to the Bank’s Executive Directors covered i) the MIIA and the private political riskinsurance market, ii) the MIIA and its relationship to the national investment insurance scheme, iii) additionality ofinvestment induced by a multilateral investment insurance agency, iv) the MIIA and the question of its link with theBank, v) financing the MIIA, vi) the MIIA and the question of voting rights and representation and vii) the MIIA andsome aspects of its operational relationship with host countries. For a summary of these studies, see Shihata, supra, note 1,at 48-54.12. The writer served as legal adviser to the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development in 1966–70 and 1972–76and as director-general of the OPEC Fund for International Development in 1976–83. He dealt extensively with theWorld Bank.



state agency of that type at the time,13 convinced me that a universal agency, if properlyconstructed, would have a greater role and fewer risks. While the Bank’s President sharedthat view, previous discussions in the Bank’s Board led him and other members of the Bank’sManaging Committee to conclude that there was no chance for pursuing the matter furtherunder the then prevailing circumstances. A senior colleague described the initiative as “a deadhorse”; other members of the Committee saw no chance for its revival. It was not difficult toget a quick approval for my request to take full charge of a project nobody else expectedto succeed.

The inter-Arab corporation that I helped to establish during my work as legal adviserto the Kuwait Fund had two features that were missing in the successive World Bank staffreports and the absence of which contributed, in my view, to the lack of enthusiasm for themby many countries. The corporation had its own share-capital, which was subscribed to by allmembers, and political risk insurance was only one of its two basic functions, the other beingconducting research on investment opportunities and the conditions needed to attract in-vestment. Its overall purpose was thus not merely to provide greater protection to externalinvestors, but also to encourage the flow of investment from capital surplus to capital deficitcountries in the region. Subscriptions and votes were based on the relative economic powerof members without a prior determination that capital exporting countries ought to pre-dominate the agency’s decisions. These features no doubt helped avoid many of the concernsassociated with the earlier World Bank schemes.

Benefiting from this experience and from individual consultations with the Bank’sExecutive Directors, I prepared a paper for a Board seminar, held on December 16, 1983,where I listed the controversial issues and advocated a new approach that would look for atailor-made design of the agency to meet the concerns of its potential members. Followingthis seminar, where traditional negative postures were once again expressed by most Directors,the Board was informed by the President that a new proposal would be submitted outliningthe basic features of the projected agency. Formal objections against any further discussionwere overruled in a subsequent Board meeting, which agreed that the staff should proceedwith the preparation of a specific proposal for informal discussion.

The strategy outlined in a memorandum from me to the Bank’s President in July 1984defined the steps to be followed to ensure opening the convention establishing the agencyfor signature by the time of the Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors in October 1985.The steps, which the President initially found “overly optimistic,” but which were followedto the letter, consisted of i) preparation of a paper on the main features of the proposedagency followed by a detailed “Questions and Answers” and discussing the two documentswith individual Executive Directors before holding an informal Board meeting to discussthem; ii) preparation of the first draft Convention establishing the agency in light of Board

13. For details of the convention establishing that agency, which was opened for signature in May 1971 and enteredinto force in April 1974, see Shihata, Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corporation, 6 J. World Trade L. 185 (1978).The author wrote the first draft of the convention establishing that corporation.

47

discussion in the informal meeting and distributing the draft to Executive Directors beforethe 1984 Annual Meetings of the Board of Governors; iii) creating the widest possible aware-ness during these Annual Meetings of the special features of the new proposal and its advan-tages; iv) conducting a thorough process of consultation with member governments, businessgroups, professional associations, and other groupings after the 1984 Annual Meetings tofurther refine the proposal and drum up support for it in all the circles concerned;v) preparation of a revised text of the draft convention in light of all the comments received,along with a detailed commentary on the new text and distributing the two documents forconsideration either in a “committee of interested countries” or preferably in a BoardCommittee of the Whole to be chaired by me, and vi) discussion of the text with a viewto reaching consensus on the final version to be submitted to the Board of Governors inOctober 1985.

The basic objective of the newly projected agency, to which I gave the new name ofthe Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA),14 like that of the inter-Arab corpo-ration, was described in terms of encouraging and promoting the flow of private resourcesamong members for productive purposes. This objective was to be served by carrying outtwo functions, the issuance of guarantees against noncommercial risks and the carrying out ofother activities needed to enable developing countries to attract a greater volume of foreigninvestment. MIGA was not to act as an agent of the countries sponsoring investments oftheir nationals abroad. Acting for the benefit of all its members, with a clear developmentalmandate, it would have a capital subscribed by all its members, according to the ratio of theirsubscriptions to the World Bank’s capital. To ease the burden on potential members, only asmall portion would be paid in and, for developing countries, a portion of that might be paidin local currency. The sponsorship regime would be maintained but only as an additionalfacility that might be used under more liberal conditions, thus possibly covering investmentin developed countries as well (a particularly attractive feature for those developing coun-tries, such as some OPEC members, with sizable investments in Western countries). Theinitial capital would be relatively small but open-ended to accommodate new members.Sponsorship would allow for extending the agency’s operations beyond the limits imposedby its own capital and reserves, even when these were liberally leveraged. Any transfer ofassets, monetary or otherwise, for productive purposes would be eligible for cover, includingloans associated with a participation of the lender in the guaranteed investment as well astransfer of technology and even service contracts when the contractor’s fees were dependenton the success of the project (the original proposal extended the coverage further to stand-alone project loans, portfolio investments and some forms of export credit as long as theinvestment was either long- or medium-term and was deemed to contribute to the economicdevelopment of the host country). Funds brought from abroad by nationals for investmentin their home country could be covered at the joint request of the investor and his country.

14. The name and its acronym, MIGA, were preferred over that of MIIA, both for technical and presentational pur-poses, to distinguish the agency’s operations, which are not subject to the actuarial basis followed in insurance activitiesand which have a developmental objective, from typical commercial insurance and to give the agency an easier andmore attractive acronym.



Investment by foreign government-owned agencies could also be covered as long as theyoperated commercially. To facilitate inclusion of the two latter categories, their approval wasrequired by a special majority in MIGA’s Board. The risks to be covered also were broadlydefined with the typical noncommercial risks mentioned only as examples to which a newimportant risk, not hitherto covered by political risk insurance, was added (this is the risk ofbreach of contract in situations of denial of justice, that is, when the investor had no recourseto a judicial forum or was faced with unreasonable delay in such a forum). However, non-discriminatory measures that states normally take to regulate economic activity were explicitlyexcluded as “coverable” risks so long as they did not constitute creeping expropriation.

The new agency would not only be authorized to reinsure operations covered bynational agencies of members; it would also coinsure eligible investments with them. Throughcooperation with private political risk insurers, it would further leverage its underwritingcapacity, diversify its risks, and minimize its cost through, for instance, the reinsurance ofcertain investments or of a percentage of its portfolio with such private insurers. A looserlinkage with the World Bank was envisaged by limiting the legally required relationship tomaking the Bank President ex officio the chairman of MIGA’s Board of Directors (but notnecessarily its President). As to the voting structure, it was proposed for the first time thatwhen all Bank members joined MIGA, developing and industrial countries should have equalvoting rights, with each member exercising its voting rights individually. This result could beachieved simply by adding a certain equal number of votes to the votes acquired by eachmember through subscription. The main point was to dispel the suspicion of developingcountries, while protecting the interest of any minority group by requiring a special majorityfor important decisions. It also was emphasized that in practice MIGA’s decisions, like thoseof the Bank, would be reached by consensus to the extent possible. Subrogation of the agencyto the rights of compensated investors was recognized without exception. Disputes betweenthe agency (acting as subrogee of a compensated investor) and a member country normallywould be resolved through negotiation, and failing this, through international arbitration.The agency might, however, enter into bilateral agreements with members on alternativearrangements.

The above features of the draft convention prepared in 1984 created no doubt anew atmosphere, which allowed the Bank’s Executive Directors to reach agreement on thefinal text on September 12, 1985 in 20 sessions of their Committee of the Whole, with veryfew abstentions but without dissension. As chairman of that committee, strenuous effortswere required on my part and, when needed, on the part of the Bank’s President, bothduring and outside the Committee’s deliberations.

Even when the idea became acceptable in principle to a broad majority, seriousproblems persisted with respect to certain broad issues. Some industrial countries insisted onincluding in the convention substantive standards on the treatment of foreign investment asa precondition for the agency’s operation in a member country and also on a voting structuremore favorable to the investors’ home countries. Some developing countries, citing constitu-tional provisions, insisted that international arbitration should be excluded as the ultimate

49

method of dispute settlement. All countries but one wanted the SDR, rather than theU.S. dollar, to be the standard of value of MIGA’s capital. The value of MIGA’s capital issuewas resolved through a compromise that was later used to solve this perennial issue at theWorld Bank itself, by accepting the SDR in principle as the agreed standard but defining it interms of a fixed U.S. dollar value representing its average over a predetermined period. Theresult was a unit worth $1.082, representing MIGA’s capital numéraire. After all other issueswere satisfactorily tackled, the positions regarding substantive standards and the voting struc-ture remained unresolved due to persistent objections by two Directors. A time came when,as chairman, I insisted on closing the debate in the Committee of the Whole and requestedthe objecting Directors to raise the matters if they wished in the formal Board meeting,when the text of the convention would be submitted for approval. This act led all the Directorsto meet in my absence on the two issues, at which time they agreed without exception toadopt the solutions previously proposed by the chair and accepted earlier by most partici-pants.15 The draft convention was then formally approved by the Board, with two Directorsabstaining, on instructions from their authorities, with respect to the adoption of the con-vention, two other Directors with respect to a specific issue and, one Director with respectto another issue. Intensive efforts followed through contacts with the few member countrieswhose Directors had abstained, with the media in a large number of countries, and withbusiness groups that had some lingering doubts, to ensure a successful outcome at the meet-ing of the Board of Governors in Seoul, Republic of Korea, where the convention was openedfor signature on October 11, 1985. Three countries signed it on the same day.

The Evolution of MIGA

Progress in activating MIGA soon became an objective called for by no lesserauthorities than the joint Bank Fund ministerial Development Committee and the G7 Summit,in April and May 1986, respectively. Meanwhile, work continued in the Bank under thesupervision of this writer to prepare draft by-laws, rules, and regulations of MIGA. Theresolution of the Bank’s Board of Governors, by which the convention had been opened forsignature, envisaged that these documents would be submitted to a committee of represen-tatives of the signatory states once the convention was signed by 40 members. This prepara-tory committee met during September 15–19, 1986, under my chairmanship and was able,in this short period, to approve a host of documents including MIGA’s draft by-laws, Boardrules of procedure, financial regulations, and a detailed set of operational regulations forboth guarantee and advisory services. The draft by-laws were approved by MIGA’s GoverningCouncil in its inaugural meeting in April 1988, and the other draft documents were approvedby MIGA’s Board of Directors in its first meeting in June 1998, thus saving considerableeffort and time, which would have had to be spent if these difficult tasks were to be performedby MIGA’s own staff in its formative period.

In 10 years of operations so far, MIGA’s regulations have served it well in copingwith the changing requirements of MIGA’s business. The few amendments introduced to

15. For a discussion of the many points of difference and how they were resolved through suggestions by the author,see Shihata, supra note 1 at 87-99.



the operational regulations in part reintroduced a greater degree of flexibility that had char-acterized the draft regulations before their finalization in the preparatory committee and inpart added new restrictions. None of these changes could be described as major amend-ments, however. In addition to minor changes in the manner of determining the percentageof investment to be covered, the extent of standby coverage and its calculation in the overalllimit on MIGA’s guarantee capacity, the amount of compensation to be paid when the insuredloss materializes, the percentage of guarantee capacity usable for reinsurance activities, and achange in the period of eligible loans provided by equity holders (from a minimum of a “mean3 years” to at least 3 years), three amendments also may be noted. The exclusion of invest-ments of a “military or highly speculative nature or in legally prohibited activities such asnarcotics production” now includes as other examples investments, which do not complywith national laws that protect core labor standards or with treaties on such standards rati-fied by the host country as well as investments that use forced labor or hire harmful childlabor. MIGA’s participation in FIAS (the Foreign Investment Advisory Service, now con-ducted jointly by the World Bank and IFC) was authorized under another amendment, whichbecame moot with MIGA’s subsequent withdrawal from the financing of that facility. AndMIGA was authorized to charge a fee for every definitive application for guarantee, in additionto the insurance premiums.

With the appointment of MIGA’s first executive vice president, my formal role withrespect to MIGA came to a happy ending. It was replaced by occasional informal advicegiven at the request of the Bank’s President, in his capacity also as MIGA’s President, itsexecutive vice president or its general counsel.

The operational successes of MIGA and its ability to put the documents preparedfor it into effect without incurring any losses have been the result of dedicated efforts byMIGA’s management and staff.

In early 1994, concerns surfaced in the Bank about MIGA’s ability to meet its guar-antee obligations in view of the low level of its reserves. Such concerns were not based onany real threat to MIGA’s financing capacity: then, as now, there was not a single claimagainst MIGA by an insured investor. Rather, concerns were expressed by the Bank’s ownstaff as to whether the Bank could be called upon to provide financial support to MIGA tomeet its future obligations before its reserves became large enough for that purpose. In amemorandum to the President,16 I explained first that, while encashment of promissorynotes held by MIGA as part of its paid-in capital and calls on its subscribed capital should beavoided to the extent possible, they should not be seen in the case of MIGA “as having thesame degree of remoteness or the same disastrous effect that would apply in the case ofthe Bank.” I also explained the sponsorship arrangements referred to in MIGA’s convention.I then referred to the many safeguards inherent in MIGA’s system against abrupt claims,

16. “Ensuring MIGA’s Ability to Meet its Guarantee Obligations Prior to Accumulation of Adequate Reserves,” a noteby the general counsel, January 5, 1994, addressed to Messrs. Preston (President) and Stern (managing director) of theBank.

51

including the requirement that the investor exhaust administrative remedies in the hostcountry and the waiting periods mandated by MIGA’s contracts of guarantees. Such periods,which can reach up to 605 days in certain cases, are meant not only to allow MIGA toascertain the validity of such claims, but also to give it time to discuss with the host govern-ments how to fulfill their obligations to the insured investors or, failing this, to allow MIGAto meet the claims through other arrangements.

The memorandum further explained that the subrogation of MIGA to the investors’rights (and the assignment of such rights to MIGA) need not await actual payment to theinvestors by MIGA, but, according to the Operational Regulations, might take place “withinsuch period following notice by the agency of its decision to make a payment as the contractof guarantee may provide.” Also, under its early agreements with host countries, MIGA wasauthorized to receive directly from the Bank amounts equivalent to the subrogated claimsfrom amounts due to the country as reimbursement of expenditures financed by the Bank(such arrangements were discontinued in subsequent agreements entered into by MIGA andhost countries since February 1994).

Recognizing that prudence required MIGA not to tap its callable capital, the memo-randum included a list of “legally defensible possibilities,” not all of which were recom-mended for action, however. These possibilities included (i) reinsurance of MIGA’s guaran-tee operations with other providers; (ii) encashment of the 10 percent capital paid in theform of notes; (iii) initiation of sponsorship arrangements, which could be taken up not onlyby investors’ countries but also by host countries (that might seek to fund their contingentobligations through contingent loans from the Bank); (iv) borrowing by MIGA (a matter onwhich MIGA’s convention is silent and that cannot at any rate include borrowing from theBank without counter-guarantees from the countries where the projects are located, unlessthe Bank’s Articles were amended, but can include borrowing from IDA); and (v) possibleindirect intervention by the Bank in such forms as lending to members to enable them tosponsor or cosponsor investments for MIGA’s guarantees, cooperation with MIGA in facili-tating its recoupment of payments due from host countries and facilitating bridge financingfrom financial institutions with which the Bank has strong working relationships. In theextreme, the memorandum concluded, the Bank could consider a private placement of partof its investment funds with MIGA under commercial terms to enable it to meet an emer-gency situation requiring immediate payment beyond its means.

Later in 1996, as MIGA’s headroom to issue new guarantees became increasinglylimited, I suggested in another memorandum to the President17 the possibility of establish-ing a trust fund to be financed initially from the Bank’s net income in order to provideguarantees to foreign private investment, without necessarily requiring counter-guarantees


17. Leveraging a Small Part of Bank Resources to Expand Guarantees of Private Loans - A New Proposal, a note by theGeneral Counsel of April 15, 1996, addressed to the President (Mr. James D. Wolfensohn) (suggesting the establish-ment of a trust fund financed by the periodical transfer to it of a portion of the Bank’s net income and inspired by theinitiative of a European Investment Fund (EIF) taken by the European Investment Bank (EIB)).


from host governments, and to consider the appointment of MIGA as trustee or cotrustee ofsuch a fund. In a subsequent memorandum,18 I explained again different ways of supportingMIGA, including the possibility of an outright grant from the Bank, while indicating that themost straightforward solution would be a general increase of MIGA’s capital, for which Ithought political support was lacking. Discussions on these and other ideas eventually ledto agreement on a two-pronged approach whereby the Bank provided a $150 million grantto MIGA from its net income (which exceeds MIGA’s initial cash paid-in capital) and MIGA’smembers reached a consensus on the need to increase its share capital by $750 million.Credit for this positive outcome, which placed MIGA once again in a position to expand itsoperations, no doubt goes to the remarkable negotiating skills of James D. Wolfensohn,President of the World Bank Group, and to the perseverance and persistent efforts of AkiraIida, MIGA’s then executive vice president.

18. “Legally Feasible Ways in Which the Bank May Support MIGA,” a note by the general counsel, November 21,1996, addressed to the President (Mr. James D. Wolfensohn).

53

MIGA EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENTS, 1988–98:BIOGRAPHIES

BIOGRAPHIES

Motomichi Ikawa

Mr. Motomichi Ikawa, a Japanese national, took up his appointment as MIGA’sexecutive vice president on July 9, 1998. Before joining MIGA, Mr. Ikawa served as seniordeputy director-general of the International Finance Bureau in the Ministry of Finance ofJapan (MOF).

Mr. Ikawa graduated from the University of Tokyo in economics and undertook gradu-ate work at the University of California, Berkeley (Ph.D. candidate in economics).

He joined the MOF in 1969 and served in various positions in the InternationalFinance Bureau. He held posts as director of the International Organization Division, theForeign Exchange and Money Market Division, and the Development Policy Division.Mr. Ikawa also served as managing director, Coordination Department, at the OverseasEconomic Cooperation Fund.

Mr. Ikawa’s previous international experience includes service as an economist atthe OECD in Paris and as director of the Budget, Personnel, and Management SystemsDepartment of the Asian Development Bank in Manila. He was Japan’s deputy during theIDA-11 negotiations and has represented his country in several high-level international meet-ings, including the G7 African Expert Group meeting, the G8 Development Experts meeting,APEC and ASEM Deputies meetings, and the G8 Preparatory Financial Sub-sherpa meetingfor the Birmingham Summit.


Akira Iida

Mr. Akira Iida, a Japanese national, joined MIGA as executive vice president onJuly 9, 1992, after serving as executive director, Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO).

After graduating from the Faculty of Law, Tokyo University, Mr. Iida joined the MOFwhere he served in various positions in the Banking Bureau, the Tax Bureau, and the Eco-nomic Planning Agency. Between 1978 and 1982, he successively held posts as technicalassistant to the chairman of WP3/EPC/OECD; technical counselor in Prime Minister Suzuki’sCabinet (1980); and assistant vice minister for international affairs, MOF.

Mr. Iida was appointed financial counselor to the Japanese Permanent Delegation tothe OECD in 1983. He served as chairman of the CMIT/CMF Joint Group on Renovationof OECD Code of Liberalization in Financial Areas. Mr. Iida returned to the MOF as directorof the Control Division, Banking Inspection Department. He later served as director of theWorld Bank’s Tokyo Office (IBRD, IDA) and subsequently was elected deputy director-general of the Customs and Tariff Bureau, MOF.

55BIOGRAPHIES

Yoshio Terasawa

Mr. Yoshi Terasawa became MIGA’s first executive vice president on July 1, 1988,after serving as vice chairman of the Committee on Japan-U.S. Relations, Keizai Doyukai(Japan Association of Corporate Executives).

Mr. Terasawa, a Japanese national, graduated from the Faculty of Political Scienceand Economics, Waseda University, in economics in 1954. Subsequently, he joined the NomuraSecurities Foreign Department in Tokyo. In 1956, he enrolled in the Graduate Division ofthe Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, as a Fulbright Scholar, and in 1958 he re-turned to Nomura Tokyo as head of the Overseas Underwriting Section.

He was transferred to Nomura Tokyo’s New York Branch in 1968 and, a year later,served as executive vice president of Nomura Securities International Inc. (NSI). Between1970 and 1985, Mr. Terasawa held various positions at NSI New York and Nomura Tokyo.He was President and Chairman of NSI and served as director of the International FinanceDepartment, managing director of international affairs, executive managing director, andexecutive vice president of Nomura Tokyo.

Mr. Terasawa also held positions as director of the Japanese Society in New York;member of the Board of Trustees, Institute of International Education in New York; memberof the Advisory Board School of Advance International Studies at Johns Hopkins Universityin Washington D.C.; and member of the Board of Trustees, Riverdale County School in NewYork. He was the first Japanese member of the Boston Stock Exchange and the New YorkStock Exchange.


MIGA’S GUARANTEE CLIENTS

Clovergem AGCoastal Suzhou Power, Ltd.Coastal Wuxi Power, Ltd.*The Coca-Cola Export CorporationCogen Technologies Saba Power, L.P.Commercial Bank of Greece, S.A.*Companhia Brasileira de Projetos e Obras*Compañía Española de Seguros de

Crédito a la Exportación S.A.Conservation Tourism, Ltd.Continental Grain Company*Crédit Lyonnais Belgium, S.A.Crédit SuisseCyprus Climax Metals CompanyDrummond Company, Inc.Efes Breweries International B.V.*Efes Sinai Yatirim Ve Ticaret A.S.*El Paso Energy International Company*Energy Investors Fund II, L.P.Enka Holding Yatirim A.S.Enka Insaat ve Sanayi A.S.Enron CorporationERI Holdings IIFaisal Finance, S.A.The First National Bank of Boston*France Commodities, S.A.*Freeport-McMoran Copper Co., Inc.Gate Gourmet Holding, Ltd.General Electric CompanyGenerale Bank, S.A.Global Menkul Degerler A.S.Greenwood Mills, Inc.*Gribal, S.A.GSM Gold LimitedGuardian Glass Investments, S.A.Habib Bank A.G. Zurich*Harris Advanced Technology Sdn. Bhd.Harsco Bermuda Limited*Harsco Corporation*Heckett Multiserv Investment CorporationHolding Savana, S.A.*Honeywell, Inc.Houston Industries Energy, Inc.Hydra-Co Enterprises, Inc.Hydro Aluminum, A.S.IBA, B.V.Illinova Generating Company*Imperial Chemical Industries, Plc.Impregilo, S.p.A.Industrial Development Corporation of

South Africa LimitedING Bank, N.V.*

ABB Kraft A.S.ABN AMRO Bank, N.V.*AES CorporationAgro-Industrial Investment and

Development, S.A.*Alimenta, S.p.A.*American Cyanamid CompanyAndré & Cie, S.A.*Anglo American Corporation of

South Africa, Ltd.Arcadian Partners, L.P.*Atlantic Commercial Finance, B.V.AVX CorporationAVX Limited*Banco Español de CréditoBanco Exterior de España, S.A.Banco Santander, S.A.*Banesto Banking CorporationBanff Resources Ltd.Banff Resources Ltd. & LaSourceBank of America*Bank of America NT & SABankBostonBank of BostonBank of Nova Scotia*Banque Belgolaise, S.A.Banque Indosuez*Banque Nationale de Paris*Barclays Bank, Plc.Barclays Metals LimitedBarge Energy, L.L.C.Barlows Tractor International Limited*Bering Netherlands, B.V.BOC HoldingsBritish Gas, Plc.Bureau de Recherches Géologiques

et Minières*BWF Unternehmensbeteiligungen GmbH*Cadbury Russia LimitedCadbury Schweppes plc.Cambior, Inc.Cameco CorporationCapital Indonesia Power I C.V.Caribbean Mercantile BankC.A.S., S.p.A.Catalina Lighting, Inc.The Chase Manhattan BankChina Capital Development CorporationChiyoda Corporation*Ciments FrançaisCitibank, N.A.*Citibank Overseas Investment Corporation

June 30, 1998

57

Placer Dome, Inc.Promofin Outremer, S.A.*Puerto Seco, S.A.Purolite International LimitedRadisson Hotels International,

Latin America Inc.Ratti Technologies S.r.L.Remetal, S.A.Ringnes A.S.*Rio Algom LimitedRockfort Power Associates, Inc.Rover Exports LimitedRover Overseas Holdings LimitedR.T.Z. Overseas Holdings LimitedSASSAS Service PartnerSaudi American BankScotia Mercantile BankScudder Latin American Power I-C, L.D.C.Scudder Latin American Trust I-P, L.D.C.*Secil-Companhia Geral De Cal

e Cimento, S.A.*Shinwha Textile Company, Ltd.Sithe International, Inc.Sociedade de Empreitadas Adriano, S.A.*Société de Promotion Financière et

d’Investissement, S.A.*Société Générale, S.A.*Société Internationale de Plantations

D’Hévéas, S.A.Standard Chartered Bank Africa, Plc.Starlight Telecommunications Limited,

L.L.C.*Statkraft SFSumitomo CorporationSunnen Products CompanyTilda Holdings (Africa) Ltd.*Toyota Tsusho CorporationUBP Hungary, Inc.*Ukrainian Investment Funds LimitedUMC Equatorial Guinea CorporationUnion Bank of Switzerland*Union Carbide CorporationUSEC-Precursor, Inc.US West International Holdings, Inc.Vaasan Saippua Oy –Vasa Tval AbVolvo Truck CorporationWärtsilä Diesel Development Corporation,

Inc.*Wärtsilä Power Development, Inc.*Westvaco CorporationWilken Group Limited*Zentraquip AG

Ingersoll-Rand China, Ltd.Interfima, B.V.International Energy Partners, L.P.International Mariculture PartnersInternational Paper InvestmentsItalian Technology & Innovations S.r.l.Kimberly-Clark CorporationKocbank, A.S.Komatsu, Ltd.Kværner Energy A.S.LaSource*Lloyds Bank, Plc.*Magma Copper CompanyMagma Netherlands, B.V.Magma Power CompanyMarriott International, Inc.*Marubeni Corporation*Marubeni LP Holding, N.V.McCullagh International, L.P.*McDonald’s CorporationMcDonnell Douglas Finance CorporationMees Pierson, N.V.Mercurat Beteiligungs Gmbh.The Mersey Docks and Harbour CompanyMetallgesellschaft AGMetra Finance Oy ABMiddenbank Curaçao, N.V.Midland Bank, Plc.Midlands Generation (Overseas), Ltd.Millicom Cellular Holdings S.A.R.L.Millicom International Development

CorporationMine Or, S.A.Minorco S.A.Mitsubishi International Corporation*Motorola, Inc.*Motorola International Development

Corporation*Multiserv International, N.V.*Multiserv Russia, S.A.National Grid Company, Plc.New World Power CorporationNewmont Gold Company*Newmont Second Capital CorporationNewmont Mining CorporationNissho Iwai CorporationNon-Fluid Oil InternationalNordic Power Invest ABNorsk Hydro A.S.Ormat International, Inc.*Parmalat, S.p.A.Mr. Jari PeltokangasPepsiCo, Inc.Philips Electronics, N.V.Philip Morris Holland, B.V. * Client has multiple contracts with MIGA.

MIGA’S GUARANTEE CLIENTS


MIGA’S INVESTMENT MARKETING CLIENTS

Agence de Promotion, de Soutien et deSuivi des Investissements (APSI), Algeria

Agency for Development and ForeignInvestment, Moldova

Agency for the Promotion of Industry, TunisiaAgency on Foreign Investments,

Kyrgyz RepublicArmenian Development AgencyAustralian Trade Commission (AUSTRADE)BOLINVEST, BoliviaBelarus Foreign Investment Promotion

AgencyBoard of Foreign Investment, MongoliaBotswana Department of Trade and

Investment Promotion (TIPA)CANATUR, PeruCentral European Initiative Network (CEInet)Commission Technique de la Privatization et

des Liquidations, CameroonComité de Privatization, MadagascarCorporación Invertir en Colombia

(COINVERTIR)Costa Rica Investment and Development

(CINDE)Croatian Investment Promotion AgencyCroatian Privatization FundCzech Agency for Foreign Investment

(CzechInvest)Department of Electronics, Government

of IndiaDepartment of External Resources and

Foreign Investment, AzerbaijanDepartment of Trade and Industry,

South AfricaDivestiture Implementation Committee,

GhanaDominican Republic Office for the

Promotion of Investment (DROPIN)Dubai Department of Tourism and

Commerce Marketing, UnitedArab Emirates

Eastern Caribbean Investment PromotionService (ECIPS)

Enterprise Reform Unit (UTRE), Ministry ofPlanning & Finance, Mozambique

Estonian Investment AgencyEstonian Privatization AgencyEthiopian Investment AgencyEthiopian Privatization AgencyExport Development Corporation, CanadaExport Processing Zone Authority, KenyaFIDE – HondurasFiji Trade and Investment BoardForeign Investment Agency, AlbaniaForeign Investments Agency, Kyrgyz Republic

Foreign Investment Promotion Agency (FIPA),Tunisia

FUSADES, El SalvadorFonds d’Appui au Secteur Privé, MadagascarForeign Investment Agency of BulgariaForeign Investment Promotion Center of

Russia (FIPC)Fundación Invertir ArgentinaGeneral Authority for Investment (GAFI),

Arab Republic of EgyptGeorgian Investment CentreGhana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC)Goskomgeology, UzkekistanInvestment and Trade Development Agency,

HungaryInvestment Centre of EritreaInvestment Coordinating Board (BKPM),

IndonesiaInvestment Development Agency, ArgentinaInvestment Development Authority of

Lebanon (IDAL)Investment Policy Development Unit,

CameroonInvestment Promotion Center (CPI),

Côte d’IvoireInvestment Promotion Centre, KenyaInvestment Promotion Centre, MozambiqueInvestment South AfricaInvestment, Trade and Tourism of Portugal

(ICEP)Jamaica Promotions Corporation (JAMPRO)Korea Trade & Investment Promotion Agency

(KOTRA)KwaZulu-Natal Marketing Initiative (KMI),

South AfricaKyrgyz Mining AssociationLatvian Development AgencyLatvian Privatization AgencyLesotho National Development CorporationLesotho Privatization AgencyLithuanian Development Agency (LDA)Malawi Investment Promotion Agency (MIPA)Malaysian Industrial Development Authority

(MIDA)Mauritius Export Development and

Investment Authority (MEDIA)Ministère de l’Energie et des Mines, AlgeriaMinistère de l’Energie et des Mines,

Burkina FasoMinistère de l’Energie, des Mines et de

l’Industrie, SenegalMinistère des Mines, de l’Energie et de

l’Hydraulique, BeninMinistère des Mines et de l’Energie,

Equatorial Guinea

59

Ministère des Mines et de l’Energie, MaliMinistère des Mines et de l’Energie, NigerMinistère des Mines et de l’Industrie,

MauritaniaMinistère des Mines et de l’Energie,

Central African RepublicMinistère des Ressources Minières et

Pétrolières, Côte d’IvoireMinistère des Ressources Naturelles et de

l’Energie, GuineaMinistry of Agriculture and Industry,

MongoliaMinistry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism,

BurundiMinistry of Commerce, Trade and Industry,

ZambiaMinistry of Geology and Mines, AngolaMinistry of Ecology and Mineral Resources,

KazakhstanMinistry of Economy, AzerbaijanMinistry of Economy and Finance, ArmeniaMinistry of Energy and Mineral Development,

UgandaMinistry of Energy and Minerals, TanzaniaMinistry of Energy and Mining, SudanMinistry of Energy , Industry and Trade,

KazakhstanMinistry of Environment and Waters, BulgariaMinistry of Finance, KazakhstanMinistry of Finance, UgandaMinistry of Foreign Affairs, PeruMinistry of Foreign Trade and Industry,

Kyrgyz RepublicMinistry of Industry, BulgariaMinistry of Industry, Commerce and Tourism,

MozambiqueMinistry of Industry and Commerce, RomaniaMinistry of Industry and Trade, ArmeniaMinistry of Mineral Resources, Sierra LeoneMinistry of Mines and Energy, GhanaMinistry of Mines and Energy, EthiopiaMinistry of Mines and Minerals Development,

ZambiaMinistry of Mining, ChileMinistry of Natural Resources and

Environment, GeorgiaMinistry of Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection, BelarusMinistry of Nature Protection, ArmeniaMinistry of Private Sector Development and

Privatization, MadagascarMinistry of Privatization, ArmeniaMinistry of State Property Management,

GeorgiaMinistry of State Property of the Russian

FederationMinistry of Trade and Industry, NamibiaMinistry of Tourism, BeninMinistry of Tourism, Côte d’Ivoire

Ministry of Tourism, Dominican RepublicMinistry of Tourism, GhanaMongolian Business Development AgencyMongolian Chamber of Commerce and

IndustryNamibia Investment CentreNational Agency for Attracting Investments,

MoldovaNational Agency for Reconstruction and

Development, UkraineNational Council for Investment Promotion

(CONAPRI), VenezuelaOffice for Restructuring of Industrial,

Commercial and Tourism Enterprises,Mozambique

Office National de la Recherche Géologiqueet Minière, Algeria

Office National des Mines, TunisiaOffice of the Board of Investment (BOI) –

ThailandPhilippine Board of Investments (BOI)Polish Agency for Foreign InvestmentPromperu, PeruPrivatisation Agency, BulgariaRomanian Development AgencySamarkandgeology, UzkekistanSeychelles International Business Authority

(SIBA)Singapore Economic Development BoardState Agency on Geology and Mineral

Resources, Kyrgyz RepublicState Committee on Investment, KazakhstanState Committee for Metalurgy, AzerbaijanState Committee for Precious Metals,

UzkekistanState Committee on Geology and Mineral

Resources, AzerbaijanState Enterprise Commission, GhanaState Property Fund, Russian FederationSwaziland Chamber of Commerce and

IndustryTashkentgeology, UzkekistanTourism and Industrial Development

Company (TIDCO), Trinidad and TobagoTrade Development Board, SingaporeUganda Investment AuthorityUkrainian Foreign Investments Promotion

AgencyUkrainian State Company for Credits and

InvestmentUzbek Foreign Investment AgencyWest African Enterprise Network (WAEN)Western Cape Investment & Trade Promotion

AgencyZambia Investment Centre (ZIC)Zambia Privatisation Agency (ZPA)Zanzibar Investment Promotion Agency (ZIPA)Zimbabwe Investment Centre (ZIC)Zimbabwe Tourism Authority (ZTA)

MIGA’S INVESTMENT MARKETING CLIENTS