Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2011, 61216-61219 [2010-24727]
Download as PDF
61216
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices
USAID has the meaning provided in
paragraph 1(e) of Part B of Annex I.
[FR Doc. 2010–24820 Filed 10–1–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211–03–P
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE
CORPORATION
[MCC FR 10–12]
Report on the Selection of Eligible
Countries for Fiscal Year 2011
Millennium Challenge
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This report is provided in
accordance with section 608(d)(1) of the
Millennium Challenge Act of 2003,
Public Law 108–199, Division D, (the
‘‘Act’’), 22 U.S.C. 7708(d)(1).
SUMMARY:
Dated: September 28, 2010.
Melvin F. Williams, Jr.,
VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary,
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Report on the Criteria and Methodology
for Determining the Eligibility of
Candidate Countries for Millennium
Challenge Account Assistance for Fiscal
Year 2011
This report to Congress is provided in
accordance with section 608(b) of the
Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as
amended, 22 U.S.C. 7707(b) (the ‘‘Act’’).
The Act authorizes the provision of
Millennium Challenge Account (MCA)
assistance to countries that enter into a
Millennium Challenge Compact with
the United States to support policies
and programs that advance the
prospects of such countries achieving
lasting economic growth and poverty
reduction. The Act requires the
Millennium Challenge Corporation
(MCC) to take a number of steps in
determining what countries will be
selected as eligible for MCA compact
assistance for fiscal year 2011 (FY11)
based on the countries’ demonstrated
commitment to just and democratic
governance, economic freedom, and
investing in their people, as well as
MCC’s opportunity to reduce poverty
and generate economic growth in the
country. These steps include the
submission of reports to the
congressional committees specified in
the Act and publication of notices in the
Federal Register that identify:
The countries that are ‘‘candidate
countries’’ for MCA assistance for FY11
based on their per capita income levels
and their eligibility to receive assistance
under U.S. law. This report also
identifies countries that would be
candidate countries but for specified
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Oct 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
legal prohibitions on assistance (section
608(a) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(a));
The criteria and methodology that
MCC’s Board of Directors (Board) will
use to measure and evaluate the policy
performance of the candidate countries
consistent with the requirements of
section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706)
in order to determine ‘‘MCA eligible
countries’’ from among the ‘‘candidate
countries’’ (section 608(b) of the Act);
and
The list of countries determined by
the Board to be ‘‘MCA eligible countries’’
for FY11, with justification for
eligibility determination and selection
for compact negotiation, including with
which of the MCA eligible countries the
Board will seek to enter into MCA
compacts (section 608(d) of the Act).
This report is the second of the three
required reports listed above.
sources are set out in the attached
Annex A). These indicators are grouped
for purposes of the FY11 assessment
methodology under the three policy
categories listed below.
Criteria and Methodology for FY11
The Board will base its selection of
eligible countries on several factors
including:
The country’s overall performance in
three broad policy categories—Ruling
Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom,
and Investing in People; MCC’s
opportunity to reduce poverty and
generate economic growth in a country;
and Availability of funds to MCC.
Public Expenditure on Health
Public Expenditure on Primary
Education
Immunization Rates
Girls’ Primary Education Completion
Natural Resource Management
In making its determination of
eligibility with respect to a particular
candidate country, the Board will
consider whether a country performs
above the median in relation to its
income level peers (LIC or LMIC) on at
least three of the indicators in each of
the Ruling Justly, Encouraging
Economic Freedom, and Investing in
People categories, and above the median
on the Control of Corruption indicator.
One exception to this methodology is
that the median is not used for the
Inflation indicator. Instead, to pass the
Inflation indicator a country’s inflation
rate must be under a fixed ceiling of 15
percent. The Board may also take into
consideration whether a country
performs substantially below the
median on any indicator (i.e., below the
25th percentile) and has not taken
appropriate measures to address this
shortcoming.
Performance of Policy Categories
Section 607 of the Act requires that
the Board’s determination of eligibility
be based ‘‘to the maximum extent
possible, upon objective and
quantifiable indicators of a country’s
demonstrated commitment’’ to the
criteria set out in the Act. For FY11,
there will be two groups of candidate
countries—low income countries (LIC)
and lower middle income countries
(LMIC). As outlined in MCC’s Report on
Countries that are Candidate Countries
for Millennium Challenge Account
Eligibility for Fiscal Year 2011 and
Countries that would be Candidates but
or Legal Prohibitions (August 2010), LIC
candidates are those countries that have
a per capita income equal to or less than
$1,905 and are not ineligible to receive
United States economic assistance
under part I of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 by reason of the application
of any provision of the Foreign Assistant
Act or any other provision of law. LMIC
candidates are those countries that have
a per capita income between $1,906 and
$3,945 and are not ineligible to receive
United States economic assistance
under the same stipulations.
The Board uses seventeen indicators
to assess the policy performance of
individual countries (specific
definitions of the indicators and their
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Ruling Justly
Civil Liberties
Political Rights
Voice and Accountability
Government Effectiveness
Rule of Law
Control of Corruption
Encouraging Economic Freedom
Inflation
Fiscal Policy
Business Start-up
Trade Policy
Regulatory Quality
Land Rights Access
Investing in People
Approach to Income Classification
Transition
Each year a number of countries shift
income groups, and some countries
formerly classified as LICs suddenly
face new, higher performance standards
in the LMIC group. As a result, they
typically perform relatively worse as an
LMIC, even if they performed relatively
well as an LIC, and maintained or
improved performance over the
previous year in absolute terms. To
address the challenges associated with
sudden changes in performance
standards for these countries, MCC has
adopted an approach to income category
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
transition whereby the Board may
consider the indicator performance of
countries that transitioned from the LIC
to the LMIC category both relative to
their LMIC peers, as well as in
comparison to the current fiscal year’s
LIC pool for a period of three years.
Supplemental Information
While the indicators are the
predominant basis for determining
which countries will be eligible for
MCA assistance, it is consistent with the
Act for the Board to exercise discretion
when evaluating performance on the
indicators and determining a final list of
eligible countries. The Board may take
into account other quantitative and
qualitative information (supplemental
information) to determine whether a
country performed satisfactorily in
relation to its peers in a given income
category. Such supplemental
information is important because there
are elements of the eligibility criteria set
out in the Act for which there is either
limited quantitative information (e.g.,
the rights of people with disabilities) or
no well-developed performance
indicator. Until such data and/or
indicators are developed, the Board may
rely on additional data and qualitative
information to assess policy
performance. For example, the State
Department Human Rights Report
contains qualitative information to make
an assessment on a variety of criteria
outlined by Congress, such as the rights
of people with disabilities, the treatment
of women and children, workers rights,
and human rights.
Supplemental information is also
important because it makes up for data
gaps, lags, trends, or other weaknesses
in particular indicators. For example,
the median score (and passing
threshold) for the Girls’ Primary
Education Completion indicator in the
LMIC group has historically been very
high. Recognizing that this may pose
limitations on the indicator’s ability to
meaningfully differentiate policy
performance, the Board may consider
that a girls’ primary education
completion rate above 95 percent
essentially represents full completion,
regardless of where the median score for
this indicator falls. As additional
information in the area of corruption,
the Board may consider how a country
is evaluated by supplemental sources
like Transparency International’s
Corruption Perceptions Index and the
Global Integrity Report, among others,
as well as on the defined indicator.
Consideration for Subsequent Compacts
Countries nearing the end of compact
implementation may be considered for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Oct 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
eligibility for a second compact. In
determining eligibility for a second
compact, the Board will consider,
among other factors, the country’s
policy performance using the
methodology and criteria described
above and the country’s track record of
performance implementing its first
compact. To assess implementation of a
first compact, the Board will consider
the nature of the country partnership
with MCC, the degree to which the
country has demonstrated a
commitment and capacity to achieve
program results, and the degree to
which the country has implemented the
compact in accordance with MCC’s
policies and standards.
Continuing Policy Performance
Partner countries that are developing
or implementing a compact are expected
to seek to maintain and improve policy
performance. MCC recognizes that
partner countries may not meet the
indicator criteria from time to time due
to a number of factors, such as changes
in the peer-group median; transition
into a new income category (e.g., from
LIC to LMIC); numerical declines in
score that are within the statistical
margin of error; slight declines in policy
performance; revisions or corrections of
data; the introduction of new sub-data
sources; or changes in the indicators
used in measuring performance. None of
these factors alone signifies a significant
policy reversal or warrants suspension
or termination of eligibility and/or
assistance.
However, MCC may issue a warning,
suspension, or termination of eligibility
and/or assistance to countries that
demonstrate a significant policy
reversal. According to MCC’s
authorizing legislation, ‘‘[a]fter
consultation with the Board, the Chief
Executive Officer may suspend or
terminate assistance in whole or in part
for a country or entity * * * if * * *
the country or entity has engaged in a
pattern of actions inconsistent with the
criteria used to determine the eligibility
of the country or entity * * *.’’ Because
of data lags, this pattern of actions need
not be captured in the indicators for
MCC to take action.
Consideration of Changes to the Criteria
and Methodology
For FY11, there are no changes to the
core criteria or methodology used in
FY10.
In keeping with MCC’s commitment
to aid effectiveness through regular
evaluation of its own practice, MCC is
undertaking a comprehensive review of
its country selection process. At the
time the selection system was
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61217
established, MCC’s country scorecard
represented the most effective way to
use third-party data to compare policy
performance as objectively as possible
across the broad majority of low and
lower middle income countries. After
using this system for six years, MCC
believes it is appropriate to undertake a
review to ensure that the most effective
indicator system is being used to
evaluate and select countries for
eligibility. While the review may find
that MCC should make no changes to
the selection system, it may,
alternatively, identify recommended
adjustments. Any such adjustments
could be implemented as part of the
fiscal year 2012 selection process.
The selection review is in its early
stages and planned to extend through
mid-2011. The review will include
consultations with a broad range of
stakeholders and experts in the
development community. As a first step,
MCC encourages broad participation in
the formal public comment period that
follows the publication of this report
and lasts until December 15.
Relationship to Statutory Criteria
Within each policy category, the Act
sets out a number of specific selection
criteria. As indicated above, a set of
objective and quantifiable policy
indicators is used in determining
eligibility for MCA assistance and in
measuring the relative performance by
candidate countries against these
criteria. Performance against each of
these criteria is assessed by at least one
of the seventeen objective indicators
and some criteria are addressed by
multiple indicators. The following list
of the criteria set forth in the Act
identifies in parentheses the
corresponding indicators.
Section 607(b)(1): Just and democratic
governance, including a demonstrated
commitment to—
(A) Promote political pluralism,
equality and the rule of law (Political
Rights, Civil Liberties, Voice and
Accountability, and Rule of Law);
(B) Respect human and civil rights,
including the rights of people with
disabilities (Political Rights, Civil
Liberties, and Voice and
Accountability);
(C) Protect private property rights
(Civil Liberties, Regulatory Quality, Rule
of Law, and Land Rights and Access);
(D) Encourage transparency and
accountability of government (Political
Rights, Civil Liberties, Voice and
Accountability, Control of Corruption,
Rule of Law, and Government
Effectiveness); and
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
61218
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices
(E) Combat corruption (Political
Rights, Civil Liberties, Rule of Law, and
Control of Corruption).
and objectivity. Where possible, the
indicators are developed by
independent sources.
Section 607(b)(2): Economic freedom,
including a demonstrated commitment
to economic policies that—
Ruling Justly
(A) Encourage citizens and firms to
participate in global trade and
international capital markets (Fiscal
Policy, Inflation, Trade Policy, and
Regulatory Quality);
(B) Promote private sector growth
(Inflation, Business Start-Up, Fiscal
Policy, Land Rights and Access, and
Regulatory Quality);
(C) Strengthen market forces in the
economy (Fiscal Policy, Inflation, Trade
Policy, Business Start-Up, Land Rights
and Access, and Regulatory Quality);
and
(D) Respect worker rights, including
the right to form labor unions (Civil
Liberties and Voice and Accountability).
Section 607(b)(3): Investments in the
people of such country, particularly
women and children, including
programs that—
(A) Promote broad-based primary
education (Girls’ Primary Education
Completion and Public Expenditure on
Primary Education);
(B) Strengthen and build capacity to
provide quality public health and
reduce child mortality (Immunization
Rates, Public Expenditure on Health,
and Natural Resource Management);
and
(C) Promote the protection of
biodiversity and the transparent and
sustainable management and use of
natural resources (Natural Resource
Management).
Annex A
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Indicator Definitions
The following 17 indicators will be
used in measuring candidate countries’
demonstrated commitment to the
criteria set forth in section 607(b) of the
Act. The indicators are intended to
assess the degree to which the political
and economic conditions in a country
serve to promote broad-based
sustainable economic growth and
reduction of poverty, and thus provide
a sound environment for the use of
MCA funds. The indicators are not goals
in themselves; rather they are proxy
measures of policies that are linked to
broad-based sustainable economic
growth. The indicators were selected
based on their (i) Relationship to
economic growth and poverty
reduction; (ii) the number of countries
they cover; (iii) transparency and
availability; and (iv) relative soundness
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Oct 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
Civil Liberties: Independent experts
rate countries on: Freedom of
expression; association and
organizational rights; rule of law and
human rights; and personal autonomy
and economic rights, among other
things. Source: Freedom House.
Political Rights: Independent experts
rate countries on: The prevalence of free
and fair elections of officials with real
power; the ability of citizens to form
political parties that may compete fairly
in elections; freedom from domination
by the military, foreign powers,
totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies
and economic oligarchies; and the
political rights of minority groups,
among other things. Source: Freedom
House.
Voice and Accountability: An index
of surveys and expert assessments that
rate countries on: The ability of
institutions to protect civil liberties; the
extent to which citizens of a country are
able to participate in the selection of
governments; and the independence of
the media, among other things. Source:
Worldwide Governance Indicators
(World Bank/Brookings Institution).
Government Effectiveness: An index
of surveys and expert assessments that
rate countries on: The quality of public
service provision; civil servants’
competency and independence from
political pressures; and the
government’s ability to plan and
implement sound policies, among other
things. Source: Worldwide Governance
Indicators (World Bank/Brookings
Institution).
Rule of Law: An index of surveys and
expert assessments that rate countries
on: The extent to which the public has
confidence in and abides by the rules of
society; the incidence and impact of
violent and nonviolent crime; the
effectiveness, independence, and
predictability of the judiciary; the
protection of property rights; and the
enforceability of contracts, among other
things. Source: Worldwide Governance
Indicators (World Bank/Brookings
Institution).
Control of Corruption: An index of
surveys and expert assessments that rate
countries on: ‘‘Grand corruption’’ in the
political arena; the frequency of petty
corruption; the effects of corruption on
the business environment; and the
tendency of elites to engage in ‘‘state
capture,’’ among other things. Source:
Worldwide Governance Indicators
(World Bank/Brookings Institution).
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Encouraging Economic Freedom
Inflation: The most recent average
annual change in consumer prices.
Source: The International Monetary
Fund’s World Economic Outlook
Database.
Fiscal Policy: The overall budget
balance divided by GDP, averaged over
a three-year period. The data for this
measure come primarily from IMF
country reports or, where public IMF
data are outdated or unavailable, are
provided directly by the recipient
government with input from U.S.
missions in host countries. All data are
cross-checked with the IMF’s World
Economic Outlook database to try to
ensure consistency across countries and
made publicly available. Source:
International Monetary Fund Country
Reports, National Governments, and the
International Monetary Fund’s World
Economic Outlook Database.
Business Start-Up: An index that rates
countries on the time and cost of
complying with all procedures officially
required for an entrepreneur to start up
and formally operate an industrial or
commercial business. Source:
International Finance Corporation.
Trade Policy: A measure of a
country’s openness to international
trade based on weighted average tariff
rates and non-tariff barriers to trade.
Source: The Heritage Foundation.
Regulatory Quality: An index of
surveys and expert assessments that rate
countries on: the burden of regulations
on business; price controls; the
government’s role in the economy; and
foreign investment regulation, among
other areas. Source: Worldwide
Governance Indicators (World Bank/
Brookings Institution).
Land Rights and Access: An index
that rates countries on the extent to
which the institutional, legal, and
market framework provide secure land
tenure and equitable access to land in
rural areas and the time and cost of
property registration in urban and periurban areas. Source: The International
Fund for Agricultural Development and
the International Finance Corporation.
Investing in People
Public Expenditure on Health: Total
expenditures on health by government
at all levels divided by GDP. Source:
The World Health Organization.
Immunization Rates: The average of
DPT3 and measles immunization
coverage rates for the most recent year
available. Source: The World Health
Organization and the United Nations
Children’s Fund.
Total Public Expenditure on Primary
Education: Total expenditures on
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices
primary education by government at all
levels divided by GDP. Source: The
United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization and National
Governments.
Girls’ Primary Completion Rate: The
number of female students enrolled in
the last grade of primary education
minus repeaters divided by the
population in the relevant age cohort
(gross intake ratio in the last grade of
primary). Source: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization.
Natural Resource Management: An
index made up of four indicators: ecoregion protection, access to improved
water, access to improved sanitation,
and child (ages 1–4) mortality. Source:
The Center for International Earth
Science Information Network and the
Yale Center for Environmental Law and
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010–24727 Filed 10–1–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211–03–P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice (10–116)]
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel;
Meeting
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public
Law 92–463, as amended, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
announces a forthcoming meeting of the
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel.
DATES: Friday, October 22, 2010, 12:30
p.m. to 2 p.m. Central Standard Time.
ADDRESSES: Johnson Space Center,
NASA Road 1, Building 1, Room 966,
Houston, TX 77058.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Kathy Dakon, Aerospace Safety
Advisory Panel Executive Director,
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Washington, DC 20546,
(202) 358–0732.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel will
hold its fourth Quarterly Meeting for
2010. This discussion is pursuant to
carrying out its statutory duties for
which the Panel reviews, identifies,
evaluates, and advises on those program
activities, systems, procedures, and
management activities that can
contribute to program risk. Priority is
given to those programs that involve the
safety of human flight. The agenda will
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Oct 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
include Safety and Mission Assurance
Issues, Safely De-Orbiting the
International Space Station, and
Inspector General Study: Astronaut
Health Update. The meeting will be
open to the public up to the seating
capacity of the room. Seating will be on
a first-come basis. Attendees will be
required to sign a visitor’s register and
to comply with NASA security
requirements, including the
presentation of a valid picture ID, before
receiving an access badge. Foreign
nationals attending the meeting will be
required to provide the following
information no less than 7 working days
prior to the meeting: Full name; gender;
date/place of birth; citizenship; visa/
green card information (number, type,
expiration date); passport information
(number, country, expiration date);
employer/affiliation information (name
of institution, address, country,
telephone); and title/position of
attendee. Additional information may
be requested. This would also include
Legal Permanent Resident information:
Green card number and expiration date.
To expedite admittance, attendees with
U.S. citizenship can provide identifying
information 2 working days in advance.
Persons with disabilities who require
assistance should indicate this.
Photographs will only be permitted
during the first 10 minutes of the
meeting. During the first 30 minutes of
the meeting, members of the public may
make a 5-minute verbal presentation to
the Panel on the subject of safety in
NASA. Any member of the public is
permitted to file a written statement
with the Panel at the time of the
meeting. Verbal presentations and
written comments should be limited to
the subject of safety in NASA and
should be received 2 working days in
advance. It is imperative that the
meeting be held on this date to
accommodate the scheduling priorities
of the key participants. To reserve a
seat, file a written statement, or make a
verbal presentation, please contact Ms.
Susan Burch via e-mail at
Susan.Burch@nasa.gov.
Dated: September 28, 2010.
P. Diane Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer,
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–24753 Filed 10–1–10; 8:45 am]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–458; NRC–2010–0315]
Entergy Operations, Inc.; River Bend
Station, Unit 1; Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
changes to the Emergency Plan,
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54, ‘‘Conditions
of licenses,’’ paragraph (q), for Facility
Operating License No. DPF–47, issued
Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the
licensee), for operation of the River
Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), located in
West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. In
accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC
performed an environmental
assessment. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment, the NRC is
issuing a finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The guidance in NUREG–0654/
FEMA–REP–1, Table B–1, ‘‘Minimum
Staffing Requirements for NRC
Licensees for Nuclear Power Plant
Emergencies,’’ for repair and corrective
actions states that two individuals, one
Mechanical Maintenance/Radwaste
Operator and one Electrical
Maintenance/Instrumentation and
Control (I&C) technician, should be
designated for each shift, but their
functions may be carried out by shift
personnel assigned other duties. The
licensee is committed to the guidance in
NUREG–0654, but has requested a
deviation. Specifically, the proposed
action would revise Section 13.3.4.2.2.4,
‘‘Plant Systems Engineering, Repair, and
Corrective Actions,’’ and Table 13.3–17,
‘‘Shift Staffing and Augmentation
Capabilities,’’ of the RBS Emergency
Plan (E-Plan). The revision will allow
two maintenance positions on shift to be
filled with any combination of the three
maintenance craft disciplines.
Currently, Table 13.3–17 of the E-Plan
only allows Electrical or I&C technicians
to fill these two positions.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
January 28, 2010 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML100320044).
The Need for the Proposed Action
BILLING CODE P
PO 00000
61219
The proposed change will allow the
required shift complement of two
technicians to be any combination from
the three maintenance groups. Since the
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61216-61219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24727]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION
[MCC FR 10-12]
Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year
2011
AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This report is provided in accordance with section 608(d)(1)
of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, Public Law 108-199, Division
D, (the ``Act''), 22 U.S.C. 7708(d)(1).
Dated: September 28, 2010.
Melvin F. Williams, Jr.,
VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Millennium Challenge
Corporation.
Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility
of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance for
Fiscal Year 2011
This report to Congress is provided in accordance with section
608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C.
7707(b) (the ``Act'').
The Act authorizes the provision of Millennium Challenge Account
(MCA) assistance to countries that enter into a Millennium Challenge
Compact with the United States to support policies and programs that
advance the prospects of such countries achieving lasting economic
growth and poverty reduction. The Act requires the Millennium Challenge
Corporation (MCC) to take a number of steps in determining what
countries will be selected as eligible for MCA compact assistance for
fiscal year 2011 (FY11) based on the countries' demonstrated commitment
to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investing in
their people, as well as MCC's opportunity to reduce poverty and
generate economic growth in the country. These steps include the
submission of reports to the congressional committees specified in the
Act and publication of notices in the Federal Register that identify:
The countries that are ``candidate countries'' for MCA assistance
for FY11 based on their per capita income levels and their eligibility
to receive assistance under U.S. law. This report also identifies
countries that would be candidate countries but for specified legal
prohibitions on assistance (section 608(a) of the Act; 22 U.S.C.
7707(a));
The criteria and methodology that MCC's Board of Directors (Board)
will use to measure and evaluate the policy performance of the
candidate countries consistent with the requirements of section 607 of
the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) in order to determine ``MCA eligible
countries'' from among the ``candidate countries'' (section 608(b) of
the Act); and
The list of countries determined by the Board to be ``MCA eligible
countries'' for FY11, with justification for eligibility determination
and selection for compact negotiation, including with which of the MCA
eligible countries the Board will seek to enter into MCA compacts
(section 608(d) of the Act).
This report is the second of the three required reports listed
above.
Criteria and Methodology for FY11
The Board will base its selection of eligible countries on several
factors including:
The country's overall performance in three broad policy
categories--Ruling Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom, and Investing
in People; MCC's opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic
growth in a country; and Availability of funds to MCC.
Performance of Policy Categories
Section 607 of the Act requires that the Board's determination of
eligibility be based ``to the maximum extent possible, upon objective
and quantifiable indicators of a country's demonstrated commitment'' to
the criteria set out in the Act. For FY11, there will be two groups of
candidate countries--low income countries (LIC) and lower middle income
countries (LMIC). As outlined in MCC's Report on Countries that are
Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Eligibility for
Fiscal Year 2011 and Countries that would be Candidates but or Legal
Prohibitions (August 2010), LIC candidates are those countries that
have a per capita income equal to or less than $1,905 and are not
ineligible to receive United States economic assistance under part I of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 by reason of the application of any
provision of the Foreign Assistant Act or any other provision of law.
LMIC candidates are those countries that have a per capita income
between $1,906 and $3,945 and are not ineligible to receive United
States economic assistance under the same stipulations.
The Board uses seventeen indicators to assess the policy
performance of individual countries (specific definitions of the
indicators and their sources are set out in the attached Annex A).
These indicators are grouped for purposes of the FY11 assessment
methodology under the three policy categories listed below.
Ruling Justly
Civil Liberties
Political Rights
Voice and Accountability
Government Effectiveness
Rule of Law
Control of Corruption
Encouraging Economic Freedom
Inflation
Fiscal Policy
Business Start-up
Trade Policy
Regulatory Quality
Land Rights Access
Investing in People
Public Expenditure on Health
Public Expenditure on Primary Education
Immunization Rates
Girls' Primary Education Completion
Natural Resource Management
In making its determination of eligibility with respect to a
particular candidate country, the Board will consider whether a country
performs above the median in relation to its income level peers (LIC or
LMIC) on at least three of the indicators in each of the Ruling Justly,
Encouraging Economic Freedom, and Investing in People categories, and
above the median on the Control of Corruption indicator. One exception
to this methodology is that the median is not used for the Inflation
indicator. Instead, to pass the Inflation indicator a country's
inflation rate must be under a fixed ceiling of 15 percent. The Board
may also take into consideration whether a country performs
substantially below the median on any indicator (i.e., below the 25th
percentile) and has not taken appropriate measures to address this
shortcoming.
Approach to Income Classification Transition
Each year a number of countries shift income groups, and some
countries formerly classified as LICs suddenly face new, higher
performance standards in the LMIC group. As a result, they typically
perform relatively worse as an LMIC, even if they performed relatively
well as an LIC, and maintained or improved performance over the
previous year in absolute terms. To address the challenges associated
with sudden changes in performance standards for these countries, MCC
has adopted an approach to income category
[[Page 61217]]
transition whereby the Board may consider the indicator performance of
countries that transitioned from the LIC to the LMIC category both
relative to their LMIC peers, as well as in comparison to the current
fiscal year's LIC pool for a period of three years.
Supplemental Information
While the indicators are the predominant basis for determining
which countries will be eligible for MCA assistance, it is consistent
with the Act for the Board to exercise discretion when evaluating
performance on the indicators and determining a final list of eligible
countries. The Board may take into account other quantitative and
qualitative information (supplemental information) to determine whether
a country performed satisfactorily in relation to its peers in a given
income category. Such supplemental information is important because
there are elements of the eligibility criteria set out in the Act for
which there is either limited quantitative information (e.g., the
rights of people with disabilities) or no well-developed performance
indicator. Until such data and/or indicators are developed, the Board
may rely on additional data and qualitative information to assess
policy performance. For example, the State Department Human Rights
Report contains qualitative information to make an assessment on a
variety of criteria outlined by Congress, such as the rights of people
with disabilities, the treatment of women and children, workers rights,
and human rights.
Supplemental information is also important because it makes up for
data gaps, lags, trends, or other weaknesses in particular indicators.
For example, the median score (and passing threshold) for the Girls'
Primary Education Completion indicator in the LMIC group has
historically been very high. Recognizing that this may pose limitations
on the indicator's ability to meaningfully differentiate policy
performance, the Board may consider that a girls' primary education
completion rate above 95 percent essentially represents full
completion, regardless of where the median score for this indicator
falls. As additional information in the area of corruption, the Board
may consider how a country is evaluated by supplemental sources like
Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index and the
Global Integrity Report, among others, as well as on the defined
indicator.
Consideration for Subsequent Compacts
Countries nearing the end of compact implementation may be
considered for eligibility for a second compact. In determining
eligibility for a second compact, the Board will consider, among other
factors, the country's policy performance using the methodology and
criteria described above and the country's track record of performance
implementing its first compact. To assess implementation of a first
compact, the Board will consider the nature of the country partnership
with MCC, the degree to which the country has demonstrated a commitment
and capacity to achieve program results, and the degree to which the
country has implemented the compact in accordance with MCC's policies
and standards.
Continuing Policy Performance
Partner countries that are developing or implementing a compact are
expected to seek to maintain and improve policy performance. MCC
recognizes that partner countries may not meet the indicator criteria
from time to time due to a number of factors, such as changes in the
peer-group median; transition into a new income category (e.g., from
LIC to LMIC); numerical declines in score that are within the
statistical margin of error; slight declines in policy performance;
revisions or corrections of data; the introduction of new sub-data
sources; or changes in the indicators used in measuring performance.
None of these factors alone signifies a significant policy reversal or
warrants suspension or termination of eligibility and/or assistance.
However, MCC may issue a warning, suspension, or termination of
eligibility and/or assistance to countries that demonstrate a
significant policy reversal. According to MCC's authorizing
legislation, ``[a]fter consultation with the Board, the Chief Executive
Officer may suspend or terminate assistance in whole or in part for a
country or entity * * * if * * * the country or entity has engaged in a
pattern of actions inconsistent with the criteria used to determine the
eligibility of the country or entity * * *.'' Because of data lags,
this pattern of actions need not be captured in the indicators for MCC
to take action.
Consideration of Changes to the Criteria and Methodology
For FY11, there are no changes to the core criteria or methodology
used in FY10.
In keeping with MCC's commitment to aid effectiveness through
regular evaluation of its own practice, MCC is undertaking a
comprehensive review of its country selection process. At the time the
selection system was established, MCC's country scorecard represented
the most effective way to use third-party data to compare policy
performance as objectively as possible across the broad majority of low
and lower middle income countries. After using this system for six
years, MCC believes it is appropriate to undertake a review to ensure
that the most effective indicator system is being used to evaluate and
select countries for eligibility. While the review may find that MCC
should make no changes to the selection system, it may, alternatively,
identify recommended adjustments. Any such adjustments could be
implemented as part of the fiscal year 2012 selection process.
The selection review is in its early stages and planned to extend
through mid-2011. The review will include consultations with a broad
range of stakeholders and experts in the development community. As a
first step, MCC encourages broad participation in the formal public
comment period that follows the publication of this report and lasts
until December 15.
Relationship to Statutory Criteria
Within each policy category, the Act sets out a number of specific
selection criteria. As indicated above, a set of objective and
quantifiable policy indicators is used in determining eligibility for
MCA assistance and in measuring the relative performance by candidate
countries against these criteria. Performance against each of these
criteria is assessed by at least one of the seventeen objective
indicators and some criteria are addressed by multiple indicators. The
following list of the criteria set forth in the Act identifies in
parentheses the corresponding indicators.
Section 607(b)(1): Just and democratic governance, including a
demonstrated commitment to--
(A) Promote political pluralism, equality and the rule of law
(Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Voice and Accountability, and Rule
of Law);
(B) Respect human and civil rights, including the rights of people
with disabilities (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, and Voice and
Accountability);
(C) Protect private property rights (Civil Liberties, Regulatory
Quality, Rule of Law, and Land Rights and Access);
(D) Encourage transparency and accountability of government
(Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Voice and Accountability, Control
of Corruption, Rule of Law, and Government Effectiveness); and
[[Page 61218]]
(E) Combat corruption (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Rule of
Law, and Control of Corruption).
Section 607(b)(2): Economic freedom, including a demonstrated
commitment to economic policies that--
(A) Encourage citizens and firms to participate in global trade and
international capital markets (Fiscal Policy, Inflation, Trade Policy,
and Regulatory Quality);
(B) Promote private sector growth (Inflation, Business Start-Up,
Fiscal Policy, Land Rights and Access, and Regulatory Quality);
(C) Strengthen market forces in the economy (Fiscal Policy,
Inflation, Trade Policy, Business Start-Up, Land Rights and Access, and
Regulatory Quality); and
(D) Respect worker rights, including the right to form labor unions
(Civil Liberties and Voice and Accountability).
Section 607(b)(3): Investments in the people of such country,
particularly women and children, including programs that--
(A) Promote broad-based primary education (Girls' Primary Education
Completion and Public Expenditure on Primary Education);
(B) Strengthen and build capacity to provide quality public health
and reduce child mortality (Immunization Rates, Public Expenditure on
Health, and Natural Resource Management); and
(C) Promote the protection of biodiversity and the transparent and
sustainable management and use of natural resources (Natural Resource
Management).
Annex A
Indicator Definitions
The following 17 indicators will be used in measuring candidate
countries' demonstrated commitment to the criteria set forth in section
607(b) of the Act. The indicators are intended to assess the degree to
which the political and economic conditions in a country serve to
promote broad-based sustainable economic growth and reduction of
poverty, and thus provide a sound environment for the use of MCA funds.
The indicators are not goals in themselves; rather they are proxy
measures of policies that are linked to broad-based sustainable
economic growth. The indicators were selected based on their (i)
Relationship to economic growth and poverty reduction; (ii) the number
of countries they cover; (iii) transparency and availability; and (iv)
relative soundness and objectivity. Where possible, the indicators are
developed by independent sources.
Ruling Justly
Civil Liberties: Independent experts rate countries on: Freedom of
expression; association and organizational rights; rule of law and
human rights; and personal autonomy and economic rights, among other
things. Source: Freedom House.
Political Rights: Independent experts rate countries on: The
prevalence of free and fair elections of officials with real power; the
ability of citizens to form political parties that may compete fairly
in elections; freedom from domination by the military, foreign powers,
totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies and economic oligarchies;
and the political rights of minority groups, among other things.
Source: Freedom House.
Voice and Accountability: An index of surveys and expert
assessments that rate countries on: The ability of institutions to
protect civil liberties; the extent to which citizens of a country are
able to participate in the selection of governments; and the
independence of the media, among other things. Source: Worldwide
Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings Institution).
Government Effectiveness: An index of surveys and expert
assessments that rate countries on: The quality of public service
provision; civil servants' competency and independence from political
pressures; and the government's ability to plan and implement sound
policies, among other things. Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators
(World Bank/Brookings Institution).
Rule of Law: An index of surveys and expert assessments that rate
countries on: The extent to which the public has confidence in and
abides by the rules of society; the incidence and impact of violent and
nonviolent crime; the effectiveness, independence, and predictability
of the judiciary; the protection of property rights; and the
enforceability of contracts, among other things. Source: Worldwide
Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings Institution).
Control of Corruption: An index of surveys and expert assessments
that rate countries on: ``Grand corruption'' in the political arena;
the frequency of petty corruption; the effects of corruption on the
business environment; and the tendency of elites to engage in ``state
capture,'' among other things. Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators
(World Bank/Brookings Institution).
Encouraging Economic Freedom
Inflation: The most recent average annual change in consumer
prices. Source: The International Monetary Fund's World Economic
Outlook Database.
Fiscal Policy: The overall budget balance divided by GDP, averaged
over a three-year period. The data for this measure come primarily from
IMF country reports or, where public IMF data are outdated or
unavailable, are provided directly by the recipient government with
input from U.S. missions in host countries. All data are cross-checked
with the IMF's World Economic Outlook database to try to ensure
consistency across countries and made publicly available. Source:
International Monetary Fund Country Reports, National Governments, and
the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Database.
Business Start-Up: An index that rates countries on the time and
cost of complying with all procedures officially required for an
entrepreneur to start up and formally operate an industrial or
commercial business. Source: International Finance Corporation.
Trade Policy: A measure of a country's openness to international
trade based on weighted average tariff rates and non-tariff barriers to
trade. Source: The Heritage Foundation.
Regulatory Quality: An index of surveys and expert assessments that
rate countries on: the burden of regulations on business; price
controls; the government's role in the economy; and foreign investment
regulation, among other areas. Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators
(World Bank/Brookings Institution).
Land Rights and Access: An index that rates countries on the extent
to which the institutional, legal, and market framework provide secure
land tenure and equitable access to land in rural areas and the time
and cost of property registration in urban and peri-urban areas.
Source: The International Fund for Agricultural Development and the
International Finance Corporation.
Investing in People
Public Expenditure on Health: Total expenditures on health by
government at all levels divided by GDP. Source: The World Health
Organization.
Immunization Rates: The average of DPT3 and measles immunization
coverage rates for the most recent year available. Source: The World
Health Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund.
Total Public Expenditure on Primary Education: Total expenditures
on
[[Page 61219]]
primary education by government at all levels divided by GDP. Source:
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
and National Governments.
Girls' Primary Completion Rate: The number of female students
enrolled in the last grade of primary education minus repeaters divided
by the population in the relevant age cohort (gross intake ratio in the
last grade of primary). Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization.
Natural Resource Management: An index made up of four indicators:
eco-region protection, access to improved water, access to improved
sanitation, and child (ages 1-4) mortality. Source: The Center for
International Earth Science Information Network and the Yale Center for
Environmental Law and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-24727 Filed 10-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211-03-P