Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2011, 2423-2425 [2011-609]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices
occurring before Executive Order 12015
is revoked?
DATES: All briefs submitted in response
to this notice shall be filed with the
Clerk of the Board on or before February
7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: All briefs shall be captioned
‘‘Jeffrey Denton v. Department of
Agriculture,’’ and entitled ‘‘Amicus
Brief.’’ Only one copy of the brief need
be submitted. Briefs must be filed with
the Office of the Clerk of the Board,
Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20419.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Shannon, Merit Systems
Protection Board, Office of the Clerk of
the Board, 1615 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20419; (202) 653–7200;
mspb@mspb.gov.
William D. Spencer,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2011–633 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400–01–P
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE
CORPORATION
[MCC FR 11–01]
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:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Report on the Selection of Eligible
Countries for Fiscal Year 2011
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. 7707(d)(1)).
The Act authorizes the provision of
Millennium Challenge Account (‘‘MCA’’)
assistance under section 605 of the Act
(22 U.S.C. 7704) to countries that enter
into compacts with the United States to
support policies and programs that
advance the progress of such countries
in achieving lasting economic growth
and poverty reduction, and are in
furtherance of the Act. The Act requires
the Millennium Challenge Corporation
(‘‘MCC’’) to determine the countries that
will be eligible to receive MCA
assistance during the fiscal year, based
on their demonstrated commitment to
just and democratic governance,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
economic freedom, and investing in
their people, as well as on the
opportunity to reduce poverty and
generate economic growth in the
country. The Act also requires the
submission of reports to appropriate
congressional committees and the
publication of notices in the Federal
Register that identify, among other
things:
1. The countries that are ‘‘candidate
countries’’ for MCA assistance during
fiscal year 2011 (‘‘FY11’’) based on their
per-capita income levels and their
eligibility to receive assistance under
U.S. law, and 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)));
2. The criteria and methodology that
the Board of Directors of MCC (the
‘‘Board’’) will use to measure and
evaluate the policy performance of the
‘‘candidate countries’’ consistent with
the requirements of section 607 of the
Act in order to select ‘‘MCA eligible
countries’’ from among the ‘‘candidate
countries’’ (section 608(b) of the Act (22
U.S.C. 7707(b))); and
3. 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 (22
U.S.C. 7707(d))).
This is the third of the abovedescribed reports by MCC for FY11. It
identifies countries determined by the
Board to be eligible under section 607
of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY11 and
countries with which the Board will
seek to enter into compacts under
section 609 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708),
as well as the justification for such
decisions.
Eligible Countries
The Board met on January 5, 2011, to
select countries that will be eligible for
MCA compact assistance under section
607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for
FY11. The Board selected the following
countries as eligible for such assistance
for FY11: Cape Verde, Georgia, Ghana,
Indonesia, Malawi, and Zambia.
In accordance with the Act and with
the ‘‘Report on the Criteria and
Methodology for Determining the
Eligibility of Candidate Countries for
Millennium Challenge Account
Assistance in Fiscal Year 2011’’ formally
submitted to the Congress on September
30, 2010, selection was based primarily
on a country’s overall performance in
three broad policy categories: Ruling
Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom,
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2423
and Investing in People. As a basis for
determining which countries would be
eligible for MCA compact assistance, the
Board relied, to the maximum extent
possible, upon 17 transparent and
independent indicators to assess
countries’ policy performance and
demonstrated commitment in these
three broad policy areas. The Board
compared countries’ performance on the
indicators relative to their income-level
peers, evaluating them in comparison to
either the group of low income
countries (‘‘LIC’’) or the group of lowermiddle income countries (‘‘LMIC’’). In
particular, the Board considered if a
country performed above the median in
relation to its peers on at least three
indicators in each of the Ruling Justly,
Investing in People, and Encouraging
Economic Freedom policy categories,
and above the median on the Control of
Corruption indicator. Scorecards
reflecting each country’s performance
on the indicators are available on MCC’s
Web site at https://www.mcc.gov.
The Board also considered whether
any adjustments should be made for
data gaps, data lags, or recent events
since the indicators were published, as
well as strengths or weaknesses in
particular indicators. Where
appropriate, the Board took into account
additional quantitative and qualitative
information, such as evidence of a
country’s commitment to fighting
corruption and promoting democratic
governance, and its effective protection
of human rights. For countries that
graduated from the LIC group to the
LMIC group within the last two years,
due to an increase in their per capita
gross national income, the Board also
took into account supplemental
information that showed how the new
LMIC countries would have performed
in comparison to the LIC group. This is
consistent with a 2009 congressional
decision to allow MCC to fund as LICs
a set of countries that had recently
transitioned to the LMIC category.
Finally, the Board considered the
opportunity to reduce poverty and
promote economic growth in a country,
in light of the overall context of the
information available, as well as the
availability of appropriated funds.
This was the second year the Board
considered the eligibility of countries
for subsequent compacts, as permitted
under section 609(k) of the Act (22
U.S.C. 7708(k)). In determining
subsequent compact eligibility, the
Board considered—in addition to the
criteria outlined above—the country’s
performance implementing its first
compact, including the nature of the
country partnership with MCC, the
degree to which the country has
E:\FR\FM\13JAN1.SGM
13JAN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
2424
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices
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 core policies and standards.
Using this higher bar to measure
eligibility, Ghana and Georgia were
selected as eligible for MCA assistance
for a second compact under section 607
of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706).
As a candidate country under section
606(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7705(a)),
Ghana consistently performs well on the
MCC indicator criteria. Its continued
track record of democratic governance is
demonstrated by its regular ranking
among the top LIC performers in the
Ruling Justly category. Implementation
of Ghana’s Compact is on track to
achieve its objectives, and the
investment is managed by a strong
Ghanaian-led and staffed team. The
Ghana Compact has also already
generated tangible interest from the
private sector. MCC believes that a
second compact offers opportunities for
deeper investment in a low income
country that not only has a
demonstrated commitment to a positive
policy environment and effective
program implementation, but is also
considered a regional economic anchor
in West Africa.
As a candidate country under section
606(b) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7705(b)),
Georgia performs well on the MCC
indicator criteria, even after having
transitioned from the LIC group to the
more competitive LMIC group two years
ago. Georgia is widely recognized as an
investment climate reformer and is
regularly among the top performers in
the Encouraging Economic Freedom
category for all MCC candidate
countries. Although Georgia does not
meet the formal indicator criteria in the
Investing in People category this year,
supplemental information, including
analysis from the World Health
Organization, describes a situation in
which the performance on MCC’s
Immunization Rates indicator can be
largely attributed to a temporary
shortage of one vaccine and the
introduction of alternative, private
vaccination facilities that were not
captured in 2010 data. As a result, MCC
does not have policy concerns in this
category. The government of Georgia has
demonstrated commitment to the
ongoing Georgia Compact and the
Georgian-led implementation unit is
effectively managing the compact
through its final months. MCC sees a
subsequent compact in Georgia as an
opportunity to support growth and
poverty reduction in a country with a
track record of rigorous policy reform
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
and a desire to foster private sector
investment in its own development.
Country partners that are developing
or implementing compacts must also
show a commitment to maintaining and
improving their policy performance.
While MCC’s indicators work well as a
transparent way of identifying those
countries that are most committed to
sound development policies and for
discerning trends over the mediumterm, they are not as well-suited for
tracking incremental progress from yearto-year. Countries may be generally
maintaining performance but not meet
the criteria in a given year due to factors
such as:
• Graduation from the LIC category to
the LMIC category,
• Data improvements or revisions,
• MCC’s introduction of two new
indicators in fiscal year 2008 and the
accompanying requirement that
countries pass three of the five
indicators in the Investing in People
category,
• Increases in peer-group medians for
some indicators, and
• Slight declines in performance.
Four of the countries selected as
eligible for MCA compact assistance in
FY11 were previously selected as
eligible last year. Because they have not
yet signed a compact agreement, they
needed to be reselected as eligible for
FY11 to continue compact development
and receive funding from this fiscal
year. Two of these countries are in the
LIC category: Malawi and Zambia. Two
countries, Indonesia and Cape Verde,
are in the LMIC category.
The Board reselected these countries
based on their continued good
performance since their prior selection.
The Board determined that since their
fiscal year 2010 selection, there has
been no material change in their
performance on the indicator criteria
that indicates a serious decline in policy
performance. This includes the two
countries—Cape Verde and Indonesia—
that do not meet the formal indicator
criteria this year. Although the data
available at the time of the publication
of the scorecards suggested that Cape
Verde did not meet the Investing in
People criteria this year, after the
publication of the scorecards, revised
data for FY11 were received from
UNESCO. The revised data for the
expenditures on primary education
indicator indicate that Cape Verde
would have passed this indicator, and
the Investing in People category, had the
revised figures been available at the
time of scorecard publication.
Additionally, Cape Verde’s progress in
achieving high levels of primary
education attainment is widely
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
recognized by third party experts.
Indonesia transitioned to the more
competitive LMIC category last year and
fares less well against the higher
standards, but would have continued to
meet MCC’s indicator criteria as an LIC.
Last year, Congress granted MCC
authority that allows Indonesia to be
funded as a LIC for up to three years.
The Board also reviewed the policy
performance of countries that are
implementing compacts. However, these
countries do not need to be reselected
each year in order to continue
implementation. Once MCC makes a
commitment to a country through a
compact agreement, MCC will not
consider the country for reselection on
an annual basis during the term of its
compact. MCC will continue to work
with a country—even if it does not meet
the indicator criteria each year—as long
as the country has not demonstrated a
pattern of actions inconsistent with the
eligibility criteria. If it is determined
that a country has demonstrated a
significant policy reversal, MCC can
hold it accountable by applying MCC’s
Suspension and Termination Policy.
The Board emphasized the need for
all partners to continue to improve their
policy environment and, if they do not
meet the criteria, to demonstrate their
ongoing commitment by informing MCC
of actions they are undertaking.
Countries participating in this policy
improvement process may work with
MCC to develop and implement a
forward-looking action plan that
outlines the steps they plan to take to
improve performance on certain policy
criteria, including key areas of
governance (e.g., public financial
management), or provide periodic
reports on government efforts to
improve performance on specific
indicators. MCC recognizes that there
are cases in which countries that do not
meet the indicator criteria have not
demonstrated a significant policy
reversal.
Finally, a number of countries that
performed well on the quantitative
elements of the selection criteria (i.e., on
the policy indicators) were not chosen
as eligible countries for FY11. As
discussed above, the Board considered a
variety of factors in addition to the
country’s performance on the policy
indicators in determining whether it
was an appropriate candidate for
assistance (e.g., the country’s
commitment to fighting corruption and
promoting democratic governance; the
availability of appropriated funds; and
where MCC would likely have the best
opportunity to reduce poverty and
generate economic growth).
E:\FR\FM\13JAN1.SGM
13JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices
Selection To Initiate the Compact
Process
The Board also authorized MCC to
invite Ghana and Georgia to submit a
proposal for a second compact, as
described in section 609 of the Act (22
U.S.C. 7708).
Submission of a proposal is not a
guarantee that MCC will finalize a
compact with an eligible country. Any
MCA assistance provided under section
605 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7704) will be
contingent on the successful negotiation
of a mutually agreeable compact
between the eligible country and MCC,
approval of the compact by the Board,
and the availability of funds.
Dated: January 7, 2011.
Melvin F. Williams, Jr.,
VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary,
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
at the visitor’s desk the day of the
meeting. All visitors must report to the
NSF visitor desk located in the lobby at
the 9th and N. Stuart Streets entrance to
receive your visitor’s badge on the day
of the teleconference.
UPDATES AND POINT OF CONTACT: Please
refer to the National Science Board Web
site https://www.nsf.gov/nsb for
additional information and schedule
updates (time, place, subject matter or
status of meeting) may be found at
https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/. Point
of contact for this meeting is: Kim
Silverman, National Science Board
Office, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington,
VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292–7000.
Aaron Szabo, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, telephone: 301–415–1985 or email: Aaron.Szabo@nrc.gov.
SUMMARY: DG–1229 was previously
issued for public comment in June 2009,
and the Commission approved RG 1.159
subject to changes which are spelled out
in a Staff Requirements Memorandum
dated October 25, 2010
(ML1029805650). Because of the nature
of the changes, the draft guide is being
reissued for comment, and during that
period, NRR will hold a public
workshop to solicit comments from
stakeholders and other relevant experts
on the use of the net present value
method for parent guarantees in license
transfer cases.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
parts of the NRC’s regulations,
techniques that the staff uses in
evaluating specific problems or
postulated accidents, and data that the
staff needs in its review of applications
for permits and licenses.
The draft regulatory guide (DG),
entitled, ‘‘Assuring the Availability of
Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear
Reactors,’’ is temporarily identified by
its task number, DG–1229, which
should be mentioned in all related
correspondence. DG–1229 is proposed
Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.159,
dated October 2003.
The general requirements for
applications for license termination and
decommissioning nuclear power,
research, and test reactors appear in
Title 10, Part 50, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of
Production and Utilization Facilities,’’ of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR
Part 50). Subsequent to the original
publication of this regulatory guide in
August 1990, the NRC promulgated
amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 in the
Federal Register on September 22, 1998
(63 FR 50465). Various amendments
modified 10 CFR 50.33(k), 10 CFR
50.75, ‘‘Reporting and Recordkeeping for
Decommissioning Planning,’’ and 10
CFR 50.82(b), which require operating
license applicants and existing licensees
to submit information on how
reasonable assurance will be provided
that funds are available to
decommission the facility. The NRC
promulgated additional amendments to
10 CFR 50.75 on December 24, 2002, in
the Federal Register (67 FR 78332). As
amended, 10 CFR 50.75 establishes
requirements for indicating how this
assurance will be provided; namely, the
amount of funds that must be provided,
including updates; the methods to be
used for assuring funds; and provisions
contained in trust agreements for
safeguarding decommissioning funds.
This document provides guidance to
applicants and licensees of nuclear
power, research, and test reactors
concerning methods acceptable to the
staff of the NRC for complying with
requirements in the rules regarding the
amount of funds for decommissioning.
It also provides guidance on the content
and form of the financial assurance
mechanisms in those rule amendments.
I. Introduction
II. Further Information
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing for public
comment a draft guide in the agency’s
‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series
was developed to describe and make
available to the public such information
as methods that are acceptable to the
NRC staff for implementing specific
The NRC staff is soliciting comments
on DG–1229. Comments may be
accompanied by relevant information or
supporting data and should mention
DG–1229 in the subject line. Comments
submitted in writing or in electronic
form will be made available to the
public in their entirety through the
Daniel A. Lauretano,
Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2011–705 Filed 1–11–11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
[FR Doc. 2011–609 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211–03–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
[NRC–2009–0263]
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
National Science Board; Sunshine Act
Meetings; Notice
The National Science Board’s Task
Force on Merit Review, pursuant to NSF
regulations (45 CFR Part 614), the
National Science Foundation Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the
Government in the Sunshine Act (5
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in
regard to the scheduling of a meeting
held by teleconference for the
transaction of National Science Board
business and other matters specified, as
follows:
DATE AND TIME: January 19, 2011, 11 a.m.
to 12 p.m. EST.
SUBJECT MATTER: Chairman’s remarks
and a discussion of Section 526 of the
FY10 America Competes
Reauthorization Act (Broader Impacts
Review Criterion).
STATUS: Open.
LOCATION: This meeting will be held by
teleconference at the National Science
Board Office, National Science
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd.,
Arlington, VA 22230. A room will be
available for the public to listen-in to
this meeting held by teleconference. All
visitors must contact the Board Office at
least 24 hours prior to the meeting held
by teleconference to arrange for a
visitor’s badge and to obtain the room
number. Call 703–292–7000 or send an
e-mail message to
nationalsciencebrd@nsf.gov with your
name and organizational affiliation to
request the room number and your
badge, which will be ready for pick-up
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:39 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
2425
Draft Regulatory Guide: Reissuance
and Availability
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Reissuance and
Availability of Draft Regulatory Guide
(DG)–1229.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\13JAN1.SGM
13JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2423-2425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-609]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION
[MCC FR 11-01]
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).
Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2011
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. 7707(d)(1)).
The Act authorizes the provision of Millennium Challenge Account
(``MCA'') assistance under section 605 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7704) to
countries that enter into compacts with the United States to support
policies and programs that advance the progress of such countries in
achieving lasting economic growth and poverty reduction, and are in
furtherance of the Act. The Act requires the Millennium Challenge
Corporation (``MCC'') to determine the countries that will be eligible
to receive MCA assistance during the fiscal year, based on their
demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance, economic
freedom, and investing in their people, as well as on the opportunity
to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country. The Act
also requires the submission of reports to appropriate congressional
committees and the publication of notices in the Federal Register that
identify, among other things:
1. The countries that are ``candidate countries'' for MCA
assistance during fiscal year 2011 (``FY11'') based on their per-capita
income levels and their eligibility to receive assistance under U.S.
law, and 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)));
2. The criteria and methodology that the Board of Directors of MCC
(the ``Board'') will use to measure and evaluate the policy performance
of the ``candidate countries'' consistent with the requirements of
section 607 of the Act in order to select ``MCA eligible countries''
from among the ``candidate countries'' (section 608(b) of the Act (22
U.S.C. 7707(b))); and
3. 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 (22 U.S.C. 7707(d))).
This is the third of the above-described reports by MCC for FY11.
It identifies countries determined by the Board to be eligible under
section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY11 and countries with
which the Board will seek to enter into compacts under section 609 of
the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708), as well as the justification for such
decisions.
Eligible Countries
The Board met on January 5, 2011, to select countries that will be
eligible for MCA compact assistance under section 607 of the Act (22
U.S.C. 7706) for FY11. The Board selected the following countries as
eligible for such assistance for FY11: Cape Verde, Georgia, Ghana,
Indonesia, Malawi, and Zambia.
In accordance with the Act and with the ``Report on the Criteria
and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries
for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2011''
formally submitted to the Congress on September 30, 2010, selection was
based primarily on a country's overall performance in three broad
policy categories: Ruling Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom, and
Investing in People. As a basis for determining which countries would
be eligible for MCA compact assistance, the Board relied, to the
maximum extent possible, upon 17 transparent and independent indicators
to assess countries' policy performance and demonstrated commitment in
these three broad policy areas. The Board compared countries'
performance on the indicators relative to their income-level peers,
evaluating them in comparison to either the group of low income
countries (``LIC'') or the group of lower-middle income countries
(``LMIC''). In particular, the Board considered if a country performed
above the median in relation to its peers on at least three indicators
in each of the Ruling Justly, Investing in People, and Encouraging
Economic Freedom policy categories, and above the median on the Control
of Corruption indicator. Scorecards reflecting each country's
performance on the indicators are available on MCC's Web site at https://www.mcc.gov.
The Board also considered whether any adjustments should be made
for data gaps, data lags, or recent events since the indicators were
published, as well as strengths or weaknesses in particular indicators.
Where appropriate, the Board took into account additional quantitative
and qualitative information, such as evidence of a country's commitment
to fighting corruption and promoting democratic governance, and its
effective protection of human rights. For countries that graduated from
the LIC group to the LMIC group within the last two years, due to an
increase in their per capita gross national income, the Board also took
into account supplemental information that showed how the new LMIC
countries would have performed in comparison to the LIC group. This is
consistent with a 2009 congressional decision to allow MCC to fund as
LICs a set of countries that had recently transitioned to the LMIC
category. Finally, the Board considered the opportunity to reduce
poverty and promote economic growth in a country, in light of the
overall context of the information available, as well as the
availability of appropriated funds.
This was the second year the Board considered the eligibility of
countries for subsequent compacts, as permitted under section 609(k) of
the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708(k)). In determining subsequent compact
eligibility, the Board considered--in addition to the criteria outlined
above--the country's performance implementing its first compact,
including the nature of the country partnership with MCC, the degree to
which the country has
[[Page 2424]]
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 core policies and standards. Using this higher
bar to measure eligibility, Ghana and Georgia were selected as eligible
for MCA assistance for a second compact under section 607 of the Act
(22 U.S.C. 7706).
As a candidate country under section 606(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C.
7705(a)), Ghana consistently performs well on the MCC indicator
criteria. Its continued track record of democratic governance is
demonstrated by its regular ranking among the top LIC performers in the
Ruling Justly category. Implementation of Ghana's Compact is on track
to achieve its objectives, and the investment is managed by a strong
Ghanaian-led and staffed team. The Ghana Compact has also already
generated tangible interest from the private sector. MCC believes that
a second compact offers opportunities for deeper investment in a low
income country that not only has a demonstrated commitment to a
positive policy environment and effective program implementation, but
is also considered a regional economic anchor in West Africa.
As a candidate country under section 606(b) of the Act (22 U.S.C.
7705(b)), Georgia performs well on the MCC indicator criteria, even
after having transitioned from the LIC group to the more competitive
LMIC group two years ago. Georgia is widely recognized as an investment
climate reformer and is regularly among the top performers in the
Encouraging Economic Freedom category for all MCC candidate countries.
Although Georgia does not meet the formal indicator criteria in the
Investing in People category this year, supplemental information,
including analysis from the World Health Organization, describes a
situation in which the performance on MCC's Immunization Rates
indicator can be largely attributed to a temporary shortage of one
vaccine and the introduction of alternative, private vaccination
facilities that were not captured in 2010 data. As a result, MCC does
not have policy concerns in this category. The government of Georgia
has demonstrated commitment to the ongoing Georgia Compact and the
Georgian-led implementation unit is effectively managing the compact
through its final months. MCC sees a subsequent compact in Georgia as
an opportunity to support growth and poverty reduction in a country
with a track record of rigorous policy reform and a desire to foster
private sector investment in its own development.
Country partners that are developing or implementing compacts must
also show a commitment to maintaining and improving their policy
performance. While MCC's indicators work well as a transparent way of
identifying those countries that are most committed to sound
development policies and for discerning trends over the medium-term,
they are not as well-suited for tracking incremental progress from
year-to-year. Countries may be generally maintaining performance but
not meet the criteria in a given year due to factors such as:
Graduation from the LIC category to the LMIC category,
Data improvements or revisions,
MCC's introduction of two new indicators in fiscal year
2008 and the accompanying requirement that countries pass three of the
five indicators in the Investing in People category,
Increases in peer-group medians for some indicators, and
Slight declines in performance.
Four of the countries selected as eligible for MCA compact
assistance in FY11 were previously selected as eligible last year.
Because they have not yet signed a compact agreement, they needed to be
reselected as eligible for FY11 to continue compact development and
receive funding from this fiscal year. Two of these countries are in
the LIC category: Malawi and Zambia. Two countries, Indonesia and Cape
Verde, are in the LMIC category.
The Board reselected these countries based on their continued good
performance since their prior selection. The Board determined that
since their fiscal year 2010 selection, there has been no material
change in their performance on the indicator criteria that indicates a
serious decline in policy performance. This includes the two
countries--Cape Verde and Indonesia--that do not meet the formal
indicator criteria this year. Although the data available at the time
of the publication of the scorecards suggested that Cape Verde did not
meet the Investing in People criteria this year, after the publication
of the scorecards, revised data for FY11 were received from UNESCO. The
revised data for the expenditures on primary education indicator
indicate that Cape Verde would have passed this indicator, and the
Investing in People category, had the revised figures been available at
the time of scorecard publication. Additionally, Cape Verde's progress
in achieving high levels of primary education attainment is widely
recognized by third party experts. Indonesia transitioned to the more
competitive LMIC category last year and fares less well against the
higher standards, but would have continued to meet MCC's indicator
criteria as an LIC. Last year, Congress granted MCC authority that
allows Indonesia to be funded as a LIC for up to three years.
The Board also reviewed the policy performance of countries that
are implementing compacts. However, these countries do not need to be
reselected each year in order to continue implementation. Once MCC
makes a commitment to a country through a compact agreement, MCC will
not consider the country for reselection on an annual basis during the
term of its compact. MCC will continue to work with a country--even if
it does not meet the indicator criteria each year--as long as the
country has not demonstrated a pattern of actions inconsistent with the
eligibility criteria. If it is determined that a country has
demonstrated a significant policy reversal, MCC can hold it accountable
by applying MCC's Suspension and Termination Policy.
The Board emphasized the need for all partners to continue to
improve their policy environment and, if they do not meet the criteria,
to demonstrate their ongoing commitment by informing MCC of actions
they are undertaking. Countries participating in this policy
improvement process may work with MCC to develop and implement a
forward-looking action plan that outlines the steps they plan to take
to improve performance on certain policy criteria, including key areas
of governance (e.g., public financial management), or provide periodic
reports on government efforts to improve performance on specific
indicators. MCC recognizes that there are cases in which countries that
do not meet the indicator criteria have not demonstrated a significant
policy reversal.
Finally, a number of countries that performed well on the
quantitative elements of the selection criteria (i.e., on the policy
indicators) were not chosen as eligible countries for FY11. As
discussed above, the Board considered a variety of factors in addition
to the country's performance on the policy indicators in determining
whether it was an appropriate candidate for assistance (e.g., the
country's commitment to fighting corruption and promoting democratic
governance; the availability of appropriated funds; and where MCC would
likely have the best opportunity to reduce poverty and generate
economic growth).
[[Page 2425]]
Selection To Initiate the Compact Process
The Board also authorized MCC to invite Ghana and Georgia to submit
a proposal for a second compact, as described in section 609 of the Act
(22 U.S.C. 7708).
Submission of a proposal is not a guarantee that MCC will finalize
a compact with an eligible country. Any MCA assistance provided under
section 605 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7704) will be contingent on the
successful negotiation of a mutually agreeable compact between the
eligible country and MCC, approval of the compact by the Board, and the
availability of funds.
Dated: January 7, 2011.
Melvin F. Williams, Jr.,
VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Millennium Challenge
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2011-609 Filed 1-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211-03-P
