A Poverty Resource Hub of Focus on the Global South Philippines

The International Finance Corporation’s Involvement in the Philippines: An Overview

The International Finance Corporation’s Involvement in the Philippines: An Overview

Jan 14, 2012

The International Finance Corporation's Involvement in the Philippines: An Overview by Mary Ann Manahan The International Finance Corporation (IFC) is the private sector arm of the World Bank Group and is independent of the World Bank.  Its main mission is “to promote private sector investment in the developing countries, which will reduce poverty and improve people’s lives”. IFC finances investments with its own resources and by mobilizing capital in the international financial markets.  Its charter requires it to be profitable and profits are ensured through the cash flows from the projects it invests on. It also provides technical assistance and advisory services to governments and businesses. This paper provides a short background on the state of IFC’s involvement and investment in the Philippines, in particular for the last ten years. It offers a narrative- description and facts as well as critical insights on potential flashpoint cases and issues, which can trigger complaints from communities or other parties based on the provisions of the IFC Sustainability Framework. The bigger context upon which this paper was conceptualized and written is the on-going review of IFC’s Performance Standards and Sustainability Framework. The author did desktop research and culled information that IFC website is publicly disclosing. Research assistance was provided by Wanlapa Komkai, Bank Information Center (BIC) Mekong summer intern. This paper, therefore, must be seen as an overview paper rather than an in-depth study. Finally, this was presented at the CSO Workshop and Strategy Meeting organized by Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM), BIC, and PIPLINKS, who also commissioned the study, on July 7, 2010. Comments from the participants and some of the latest developments about IFC’s investment in the country have been incorporated in this latest draft. The IFC in the Philippines The IFC has been investing in the Philippines for more than 40 years. The Philippines’ country program was the first office that was opened outside of Washington DC in 1977. Recently, to focus on what it calls as “lagging regions” in the country (1), it established a base in Davao City, Mindanao. As of June 2008, the Philippines ranks second among IFC’s exposures in the East Asia and Pacific Region, with about USD 898 million in 32 projects. It operates where there is a private sector interest and projects are approved on a case-to-case basis. The IFC’s strategic priorities in the country are in the areas of infrastructure (power generation, telecommunications, water, etc.); mining; information technology; health and education; agribusiness; financial services (banks, micro financing institutions); and small and medium enterprises through Financial Intermediaries. For the last few years, it has supported a key plank of government’s energy reform agenda under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA). In 2007, IFC supported the winning bidders of the power generation privatizations of the Magat, Masinloc and Ambuklao-Binga plants. On the advisory side, it has lent its expertise to energy-efficiency financing and rural electrification sectors. As a transaction advisor to the National Power Corporation, IFC helped government attract private sector capital to power generation in the remote provinces of Tablas, Romblon, Marinduque, and Masbate that are not connected to the main power grid. Apart from infrastructure projects, the IFC is also assisting local banks to explore energy efficiency financing as part of its response to climate change.  It is stepping up its involvement in the private sector to create a demonstration effect that would help bring additional investments to the country. Another major IFC product is its line of advisory services. Since its inception, it has provided technical assistance to both the government, its agencies, and municipalities, and the private sector on a broad range of themes, mostly on its priority sectors and recently, along its five products— access to finance, business enabling environment, corporate advice, environmental and social sustainability, and infrastructure (see table 1 for a selected list of advisory services projects). Its technical assistance encourages Public-Private Partnerships, especially in infrastructure projects. In 2006, through the Private Enterprise Partnership for the Philippines (PEP-Philippines), a facility co-financed by the Governments of Australia and Canada and IFC, technical assistance has focused on two major areas. One is the development of small and medium enterprises to increase their contribution to the economy through IFC’s integrated investment and technical expertise. Second is a focus on Mindanao, in particular, rural finance, seaweed and local investment climate promotion programs. Also, PEP-Philippines is currently helping the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central Bank of the Philippines) to set up a credit bureau, assist farmers in improving practices and gain better access to larger and more profitable markets, and help companies with sustainable energy projects in accessing funds from commercial banks. There are also on-going studies on small and medium enterprise banking, entrepreneurship training for overseas Filipino workers, and developing alternative modes of settling commercial conflicts of small and medium enterprises. Table 1. Selected Advisory Services Project, 2005-2009
Client Amount in USD Status/Business Line Information about/Objective of the Project
Light Rail Transit Authority 2,629,217 Active (infrastructure) to mobilize private sector participation to build, maintain, and manage the extension project of LRT Line1
NAPOCOR’s Small Power Utilities Group (SPUG) 2,573,780 Closed (infrastructure) private sector participation into power generation in non-grid areas, such as remote islands.
SME Banking Initiative 2,516,000 Active (access to finance) assistance to a small no. of strategically placed SME finance champions—commercial banks interested in downscaling, and rural (or thrift) banks ready to upscale.
Global Environmental Facility SE CEPALCO Solar Photovoltaic Demonstration Project 4,185,000 Closed (environment and social sustainability) eliminate the need for additional thermal power generation facilities, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions, through photovoltaic-based energy
GEF Philippines Sustainable Energy Financing Program 5,700,000 Active (access to finance) create a commercial lending platform for energy efficiency, with emphasis on financial institutions, project developers, and end users
* GEF is a US-based company that invests in forestry, energy and environment and related sectors. Source: www.ifc.org Trends in IFC Investment From 2000-2010, the total IFC investment in the Philippines amounted to almost USD 2.118 billion, with an annual average of USD211 million. Majority of this investment went to infrastructure, with 64% of the total to the power sector and support for EPIRA. From 2002-2006, the Manila Water Company, Inc., the private sector concessionaire operating the distribution of water in Metro Manila’s east zone, was given USD 125 million in total investments: USD 30M as equity; USD 45M as debt and equity finance, and USD 50 as loan. On the other hand, finance and insurance services ranked as the second highest priority area, getting 32% of total investment; 74% of the total investment for this sector was disbursed to Banco de Oro (USD 500 M) as financial intermediary to assist small and medium enterprise development. Table 2. IFC Investment in the Philippines, Approved and Completed by Sector, 2000-2010

Sector

No. Of Projects

Total Amount in million US$

Percentage /Share (rounded figures)

InfrastructurePower Utilities Transportation

12

5

4

3

990

630

125

235

47%

64

13

24

Health

2

39

2%

Finance & InsuranceFinance Insurance

8

7

1

680.34

671.84

8.5

32%

99

1

Global Manufacturing & ServicesConst. & Real Estate Wholesale & Retail

3

2

1

54.2

37

17.2

3

68

32

Info & Prof. ServicesInformation Professional Services & Tech

5

2

3

354

301

53

17%

85

15

TOTAL

30

2,118

100%*

*does not total to 100% because of rounding. Source: www.ifc.org More than two-thirds of these investments are comprised of loans/quasi loans (39%) and debt and equity financing (32%). The remaining are currency rate swap, sub-national finance, partial credit guarantee, and global trade finance. There are also 10 pending projects— either pending for approval or for disbursement, amounting to USD 304.2 M. Two of the projects are equity financing; one is a debt and equity facility; three are loans, one is structured finance (risk sharing); one sub-national finance (to local government); one grant; and one grant and risk sharing. A risk sharing facility allows “clients to transfer credit risk to IFC from their own portfolio or from a new portfolio they originate. The assets typically remain on the clients' balance sheet, and the risk transfer comes from a partial guarantee provided by IFC. In general, clients will enter into such a facility with IFC because it helps them increase their capacity to originate new assets within an asset class in which IFC seeks to increase its own exposure.”(2) The IFC assigns an environmental and social category for its investment projects after the appraisal and before public disclosure during the project or investment cycle (3). Most of the projects it has supported in the country are in the category B, i.e. “projects expected to have limited adverse social and/or environmental impacts that can be readily addressed through mitigation measures”. However, since 1995, there were 5 category A projects or those “expected to have significant adverse social and/or environmental impacts that are diverse, irreversible, or unprecedented”. These include Sual Thermal Power Plant (Mirant Sual Corp.), Hopewell Power Plant Philippines Corporation (Mirant Pagbilao Corp), Bataan Polyethylene Corp (chemical plant), Philippine International Air Terminal Corp (for NAIA Terminal 3), and the South Luzon Tollway Corporation (which is a USD 50 million loan for the rehabilitation, expansion, operation and maintenance of the south Luzon expressway under a 30-year concession loan and still pending for disbursement in local currency). Most of these are already completed infrastructure projects. However, even projects categorized as B can also be controversial, especially when an affected community protests or files a complaint. For instance, in June 2008, members of the Ibaloi indigenous community and residents of Sitio Binga in Barangay Tinongdan, Itogon in Benguet filed a complaint at the Office of the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman (CAO), an independent body and recourse mechanism that reviews complaints from communities affected by the development projects undertaken by private sector and insurance members of the World Bank group, IFC and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) (4). The CAO also reports directly to the President of the World Bank group and is mandated to improve the environmental and social accountability of IFC and MIGA. The complaint of the community had to do with the privatization and rehabilitation of the Ambuklao-Binga Hydroelectric Power Plant, which was owned by the National Power Corporation (NPC). The IFC provided a total of US$ 100 million loan to SN Aboitiz Power Benguet, a joint venture between Aboitiz Power Corporation (AP), owned by the Filipino family Aboitiz, and SN Power Invest AS of Norway, a global renewable energy company. AP is listed in the Philippine Stock Exchange. AP is a subsidiary of Aboitiz Equity Ventures, Inc., a holding and management company of the Aboitiz Group, which is also listed in the Philippine Stock Exchange. The project aims to support the privatization and rehabilitation of the 75 MW Ambuklao hydroelectric power plant and the 100 MW Binga hydroelectric power plant. Ambuklao and Binga are located on the Agno River in Benguet Province, in a relatively narrow, steep sided valley. According to the summary of proposed investment (SPI), the total project cost is currently estimated at around USD 560 Million. The sources include IFC A Loan of up to USD 85 million and IFC C Loan of up to USD15 million, a Nordic Investment Bank loan up to USD 60 Million, local banks consortium up to USD200 million and the remaining amount is expected to be financed by equity and internally generated cashflow. The uses include acquisition price of USD325 million and rehabilitation/refurbishment capital expenditures of around USD 170 million. The estimated project cost is preliminary and subject to further discussions. IFC identified that the project needs to address the following performance standards: •    environmental and social management capacity of SNAPB, and the expected technical support from the sponsors; •    environmental liabilities from past operations, and planned corrective actions; •    reservoir sedimentation; •    environmental upgrade plan; •    dam and reservoir safety; •    watershed management planning; and •    community engagement with indigenous peoples (IPs) that derive livelihoods from natural resources, in the reservoir and watershed areas Only the land acquisition and involuntary settlement were not covered since land was already acquired and indigenous peoples’ communities relocated some 50 years ago when the two dams were originally constructed. But this stirred historical tensions within the community as the Ibaloi people were displaced because of the original hydropower project. As displaced peoples, they raised the problem of displacement, deprivation of property, lands, and livelihoods of local communities and access to jobs and economic opportunities for local community members. The CAO embarked on a three-stage process: an assessment and release of the preliminary stakeholder report in July 2008 and assisting and strengthening existing community institutions (local government units and IP organizations) and the corporations to effectively represent the views of their principals and constituents, joint training and capacity building among the various ‘stakeholders’ for a multisectoral collaborative dialgoue, and a facilitated dialogue process involving representatives from the indigenous communities, local officials, the NPC and the government-owned and controlled corporation which handles its assets, liabilities, and contracts, the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation, and SN Aboitiz Power Benguet. CAO brokered the signing of a final agreement among all parties in May 2009. The memorandum of agreement contains provisions for the following: •    access to land and usufruct rights for communities and communal property including the establishment and development of an Indigenous Peoples Cultural Heritage site, •    local benefits from the corporate social responsibility of the private company, and revenues for the local government, •    enhanced livelihood for local people through the NPC’s watershed development and protection programs, •    SN Aboitiz’s provision for local employment and benefits through contracts for goods and services.(5) Flashpoint Cases, Key Issues and Critical Insights Taking off from the experience of the Ibaloi community and residents of Sitio Binga and with the 2009-2010 review of IFC’s “Sustainability Framework”— Social and Environmental Policy, Performance Standards, and Disclosure Policy as a backdrop, there is an urgency to critically look at the IFC’s investment in the Philippines. There are flashpoint cases that can trigger complaints from communities or other parties based on the provisions of its Sustainability Framework. These flashpoint cases are arenas of community/social mobilizations and actions and can serve as ‘litmus tests’ of IFC’s seriousness in improving and implementing its Sustainability Framework. First, is the proposed equity investment to Mindoro Resources Ltd. (MRL), a junior mining company based in Edmonton, Canada that focuses on mining nickel, copper, and gold in the Philippines. MRL is dual listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. One of the major shareholder is also a Financial Intermediary of IFC- Asia Lion Fund. The project costs Canadian $15 million, with USD 9.4 M equity from IFC’s own account. The equity investment aims to support Mindoro’s resource drilling, feasibility and other studies, and exploration activities for its nickel, copper and gold prospects. In particular, the company’s main exploration tenement, Agata, is located in Agusan del Norte, 40 km south of Surigao City in the north western portion of Mindanao Island (6). In 2008, the project was not submitted to the Board of IFC as exploration activities halted because of the global financial crisis, which depressed the prices of nickel in the world market. However, in April 2010, MRL resumed its exploration and IFC undertook its second review. According to the IFC, potential development impacts include erosion and rehabilitation of drill sites and trenches, waste materials, water and effluent management, occupational health and safety, compensation and management of local expectations.  IFC also emphasized in the Environmental and Social Review Summary (ESRS) that should the mining operations of MRL’s Filipino partner Minimax Mineral Exploration Corporation, which has enlisted the help of Delta Earthmoving, for Direct Shipping of Ore (DSO) start, a new and upgraded environmental and social impact assessment is needed (SEIA) since such operation is not covered by the original SEIA. The Environmental and Social Review Summary (ESRS) of 2008 seems comprehensive and looks good on paper. The ESRS identified 5 performance standards (PS) triggered by the project- PS 1: Social and Envi Assessment and management systems, PS 2: Labor and working conditions; PS 3: Pollution prevention and abatement; PS 4: Community health, safety and security, and PS 7: Indigenous peoples. Such listing of issues identifies numerous potential development, environmental, and social impacts and warrants this project as a flashpoint case. Environmental/ecological impacts: An issue to consider, which is not clear from the ESRS is the project’s impact on the watershed as the area for exploration is part of the Lake Mainit watershed. Lake Mainit is home to 31 coastal barangays in Northeastern Mindanao, with grade A water and the main source of water, irrigation, and livelihood for the communities surrounding it. It is the fourth largest lake in the country and is already a volatile watershed with various environmental problems putting pressures on the lake’s sustainability—illegal logging, overfishing, population growth, etc. Mining, even in its exploratory stage, can put additional pressure to the lake and the extent of which, including mitigation measures, should be covered by the IFC’s performance standards. This also means that PS 6 which pertains to biodiversity and PS 8 on ecological or cultural habitat should be looked into. The Mamanwas, the lake’s traditional stewards, and the Manobos are indigenous peoples that live in Jabonga, Agusan del Norte, a municipality near Lake Mainit, and will likely be affected by the mining explorations. The cumulative effect of such a mining exploration project also needs to be carefully considered. The area where MRL will conduct its extractive operations is already a hot zone for mining, i.e. there are other six other mining companies (7) with exploration permits granted by the regional office (CARAGA) of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau, the main agency that promotes mining activities in the country. The companies are prospecting gold and other mineral resources covering an area of almost 20,000 hectares around Lake Mainit. Social and development impacts. While the ESRS claims that the Manobos and Mamanwa are “are no longer practicing their old customs and traditional religion…are all tenants and they do not own the land which they reside” (8), the Mamanwas claim otherwise. On September 4, 2010, a team of civil society groups (environmentalist and IFIs watchdogs) comprised of ATM, Legal Rights and Resource Center (LRC), Amnesty International, Green Mindanao and BIC conducted a community visit to the municipality of Jabonga. The team met with women tribal leaders of Bunga and local village officials. Their visit unearthed important findings which were missing from the official IFC report— •    the IP community is practicing their customs and traditions and have established their rights over their ancestral domains •    the indigenous peoples community of Bunga is clearly against the mining operation and they are kept in the dark about the project after the 2008 consultation •    the project document does not include the villages of Bunga and Dinarawan in Jabonga as target areas. However, representatives from these communities were previously invited to participate at the ‘consultations’ organized by MRL in 2008, implying they will also be covered by the mining project. Later on, this was confirmed through the plan they submitted to the local government of Jabonga. •    adjacent fisherfolks and farming communities are also opposed to the mining operations and have sought the help of LRC •    demand for clear recognition and indication from the IFC that their communities will be included in the exploration activities of MRL. The key informants are also willing to engage with the CAO complaint process. Second, the loan to SN Aboitiz Power Benguet (SNAPB), for the Ambuklao-Binga hydroelectric power plants. While this was already a subject of complaint by the Ibaloi indigenous peoples and residents of Barangay Tinongdan, there is an added dimension to the impacts of the project. In particular the Binga Hydroelectric Power Plant (BHEPP) is registered under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The CDM is a scheme that allows industrialized countries and private sector to overshoot their emissions limits as long as they buy so-called “emissions reductions units” from CDM projects that supposedly reduce emissions in developing countries. BHEPP is considered as a renewable project which can be covered under the CDM. The IFC has already expressed full support for the project but what is not clear is how this will relate to IFC’s own Sustainability Framework. Climate change, though an area which IFC focuses on, is missing from the framework. Third, the advisory services and technical assistance of IFC and the Foreign Investment Advisory Services (FIAS) on access to land. FIAS or the World Bank Group’s Investment Climate Advisory Service is a facility within the IFC that provides advisory services and technical assistance on investments in land. FIAS helps shape the generation of investment on land through one of its products, the “Investment and Policy Promotion”. From 2008-2009, FIAS with the Philippine Bureau of Investment (BOI) identified a pipeline of potential investments on land which amounted to US$1 billion and with 200 new expansion opportunities for investors. In 2002, FIAS conducted a review of Philippine investment incentives legislation with the objective of removing constraints for foreign direct investments. In 2006, with inputs from the MIGA, FIAS provided assistance to the BOI for the development of a foreign investment retention, expansion, and diversification program. What is controversial about these technical assistance and advisory services that aim to attract investment in land is that they can facilitate land grabbing, dispossession, and displacement of farmers, indigenous peoples, rural women, and other rural poor from their land as well as undermine the on-going agrarian reform process in the country.  There were reports that such advisory services facilitated two potential investments of land leasing, concessions, and outright purchases in the Philippines, despite the restriction for foreigners to own land under the country’s Constitution. In 2008, Al-Qudra Holding, a United Arab Emirates investment form planning to acquire 400,000 hectare of land for agricultural production, under 20-30 year mix of leases, concessions and outright purchases. In 2007, reports that Fuhua Company from China leased some 1 million hectares of land under vague terms, bring in USD 3.87 billion in investments in agriculture. It was not clear whether such lease is part of the China-Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement, which is comprised of 19 separate investment contracts on agriculture and land. At the same time, the involvement of IFC/FIAS and their link with such investments remains uncertain, especially with the lack of information available on their advisory services. It is therefore imperative that such information be disclosed publicly as this concerns not only public interest but the welfare of the rural poor of the country. Beyond the Sustainability Framework There are several issues— well beyond the review process of the Sustainability Framework –which warrant a closer examination: •    Exposing the self-serving interests/objectivity of the source (IFC) of advise: There is much to say about the self-serving interests or even conflict of interests on the part and role of the IFC and the World Bank Group, as privatization advisors to governments, on the one hand, and as financiers of private buyers on the other. This is best exemplified by the privatization mess of the Metro Manila Water Services and Sewerage System (MWSS), a government-owned and controlled corporation servicing Metro Manila’s population. From 1996-1997, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) provided fees-based advisory services to the Philippine government in the MWSS privatization strategy at a whopping fee of US$ 62 million! The IFC has been part of the MWSS privatization process from the very start. But the bigger incentive was the way the privatization deal was cut. On the one hand, you had the multilateral banks supporting the MWSS privatization program. On the other hand, you had the same and similar multilateral banks and their private sector operations arms designing financial packages for the investors interested in the utility they themselves pushed to be privatized. They have as much responsibility over the messy outcomes and outright failures of the privatization programs as the government and the private sector concessionaires. IFC for instance provided equity and debt financing to Manila Water Company, Inc. from 2004-2006. •    Challenging the Advisory Services (AS) of the IFC and demand that these should be held accountable to the same Performance Standards, especially with the rapid growth of AS products in the past 7 years. With more than 50 advisory services, 18 regional facilities in 7 regions, 13 global business units and 50% of AS work contracted out to short-term consultants, no one really knows the extent of the impacts of these services. •    Monitoring the changing focus and portfolio of the IFC. The IFC admits that its business has changed. It will focus more on investments through Financial Intermediaries rather than traditional investments (corporate loans and equity investments) and more short-term financial transactions such as trade, partial credit guarantees, etc. This of course has a huge implication on the transparency and accountability of IFC. Financial Intermediaries’ operations, also known as the “opaque sector”, are much more difficult to track down than a traditional investment project. Further, they are not covered by IFC’s disclosure policy being third parties, whose commercial interests are protected. Demands for access to information will for sure be a challenge. The onus, therefore, is resting on the tenacity and ability of affected communities and civil society groups to push for IFC’s accountability as a matter of public interest. •    Reviewing and auditing the privatization of the power sector: just for the sheer scale and amount of IFC investments poured into—with 64% of the total infrastructure investments, the power sub-sector and the outright support of IFC to the government’s privatization efforts. •    Revisiting the overall framework/approach and impact of the IFC investment projects and advisory services. In thoroughly assessing the role and impacts of IFC’s investments in the country, its overall policy thrusts and objectives, project implementation, and practice need to be carefully examined. This is the more fundamental question for a lot of IFI watchdogs, on whether the IFC in practice achieves its avowed poverty reduction objectives through private sector development without undermining its own Sustainability Framework, which addresses the social ramifications of its investment policy and priorities, or whether such strategy really works. Many of the projects that the IFC financed have been subjects of controversies. Its own strategy of promoting Public-Private Partnerships is also being challenged and questioned, especially on how it helped restructure key sectors of the economy and if this has led to more ‘inclusive’ and equitable growth. The implication is that the private sector is given a bigger position as the government is seen to have failed in steering the economy. The Sustainability Framework review process offers an opening to look at the overall role, approach and framework of the IFC as well as the private businesses it caters to. The push for transformative changes and policy reforms is even more relevant when both fail to take into account their operations and impacts. * Mary Ann Manahan is a research associate with Focus on the Global South, Philippines Programme. She joined Focus in March 2003 and works on the commons (land, water, and freedom of information issues), including issues  as they relate to international financial institutions such as the ADB, and the WB,  issues of privatization and  regulation of public utilities, resource management, and imagining and building alternatives at the macro and micro levels. She has a background in sociology and women and development studies. She may be reached at  mbmanahan@focusweb.org. Endnotes (1) http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/eastasia.nsf/Content/Philippines, accessed July 1, 2010. (2) http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/about.nsf/Content/Structured_Finance, accessed July 1, 2010. (3) http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/disclosure.nsf/Content/Project_Categories, accessed July 1, 2010. (4) MIGA is member of the World Bank Group with a mission to promote foreign direct investment (FDI) into developing countries to help support economic growth, reduce poverty, and improve people's lives by providing political risk guarantee to the private sector. (5) Memorandum of Agreement on the take-over of Amubklao-Binga Hydroelectric Power Plant by SN Aboitiz Power from the National Power Corporation, May 19, 2009, Baguio City. (6) For more information about the project, see http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/spiwebsite1.nsf/2bc34f011b50ff6e85256a550073ff1c/118c9944f671c8c08525773c00645cd2?opendocument&Highlight=0,philippines (7) Other mining companies with exploratory permits are Silangan Mindanao Mining Co. Inc.,Manila Mining Corp., Coolabah Mining Corp.; Occidental Mining Corp., MRL Gold Philippines Inc., and Kalayaan Copper Gold Resources Inc. See Fabe, Bong, “Mining threatens 4th largest freshwater lake in PHL” in Business Mirror, January 13, 2011. (8)  Mindoro Resources Ltd. Environmental and Social Review Summary (ESRS) Released in 2008, p. 12. References Bank Information Center Southeast Asia/Mekong (2010), “Briefer: IFC investment in Mindoro Resources Limited (MRL)”, Bangkok, Thailand. Daniel, Shepard with Anuradha Mittal (2010), “(Mis)investment in Agriculture: The Role of the International Finance Corporation In Global Land Grabs”, foreword by Howard G. Buffett The Oakland Institute: US. Submission by Civil Society Organizations to the International Finance Corporation (2010), “Commenting on The Social and Environmental Sustainability Policy, Performance Standards and Disclosure Policy”, Washington D.C. The Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman, IFC, MIGA and the World Bank Group (2009), “Ambuklao-Binga Hydroelectric Power Project, Philippines Complaint Conclusion Report”, Washington, D.C. The International Financial Institution (2007), “IFC’s Policy and Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability and Disclosure Policy: Progress Report on the First 18 Months of Application”, Washington D.C. The International Financial Institution (2009), “The IFC Way: Defining Our Culture, Building Our Brand”, Washington D.C. (Published for the CSO Workshop and Strategy Meeting for the Review of the IFC Sustainability Framework Organized by: Alyansa Tigil Mina, BIC, and PIPLINKS : http://focusweb.org/philippines/deglobalization/articles/502-the-international-finance-corporations-involvement-in-the-philippines-an-overview)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *