Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2012, 79712-79714 [2011-32733]
Download as PDF
79712
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Notices
travel subsistence reimbursement which
a worker with receipts may claim in
2012.
Signed in Washington, DC this 6th day of
December, 2011.
Jane Oates,
Assistant Secretary, Employment and
Training Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–32842 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FP–P
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE
CORPORATION
[MCC FR 11–15]
Report on the Selection of Eligible
Countries for Fiscal Year 2012
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: December 16, 2011.
Melvin F. Williams, Jr.,
VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary,
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Report on the Selection of Eligible
Countries for Fiscal Year 2012
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:17 Dec 21, 2011
Jkt 226001
The countries that are ‘‘candidate
countries’’ for MCA assistance during
fiscal year 2012 (‘‘FY12’’) 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)));
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
The list of countries determined by
the Board to be ‘‘MCA eligible
countries’’ for FY12, 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 FY12. It
identifies countries determined by the
Board to be eligible under section 607
of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY12 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. This year, for the first time,
the report also identifies countries
determined by the Board to be eligible
for MCC’s Threshold Program under
section 616 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7715).
Eligible Countries
The Board met on December 15, 2011,
to select countries that will be eligible
for MCA compact assistance under
section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706)
for FY12. The Board selected the
following countries as eligible for such
assistance for FY12: Benin, Cape Verde,
El Salvador, Georgia, Ghana, and
Zambia.
Criteria
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 2012’’
formally submitted to the Congress on
September 29, 2011, selection was based
primarily on a country’s overall
performance in three broad policy
categories: Ruling Justly, Encouraging
Economic Freedom, and Investing in
People. The Board relied, to the
maximum extent possible, upon
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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’’).
As outlined in the ‘‘Report on the
Criteria and Methodology for
Determining the Eligibility of Candidate
Countries for Millennium Challenge
Account Assistance in Fiscal Year
2012’’, a number of changes were
adopted to update the criteria and
methodology for FY12. MCC published
and the Board considered both the
traditional and updated scorecards this
year. MCC plans to transition to
exclusive use of the updated scorecard
in the future, and there was deeper
consideration of performance on the
new scorecard for FY12. When
performance differed across the
scorecards, MCC outlined the reasons
for the Board. Scorecards reflecting each
country’s performance on the indicators
are available on MCC’s Web site at
https://www.mcc.gov/scorecards.
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, investments in human
development outcomes, or poverty rates.
In keeping with legislative directives,
the Board also considered the
opportunity to reduce poverty and
promote economic growth in a country,
in light of the overall information
available, as well as the availability of
appropriated funds.
This was the third 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)). MCC has no explicit
preference for either new or subsequent
compacts, and sees the Board’s selection
decision as an annual opportunity to
determine where MCC funds can be
most effectively invested to support
poverty reduction through economic
growth in relatively well-governed, poor
countries. However, in light of the fact
that a large share of the best-governed
low and lower-middle income countries
are already MCC partners, subsequent
compacts are likely to be a consistent
part of MCC’s compact portfolio.
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 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. To the greatest
extent possible, this was assessed using
pre-existing monitoring and evaluation
targets and regular quarterly reporting.
This information was supplemented
with direct surveys and consultation
with MCC staff responsible for compact
implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation.
As with previous years, 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
FY12. MCC is aware that some
stakeholders expressed concern that
using the updated scorecard criteria
might make the Board less selective in
its eligibility decisions. This was not the
case. The selection of two new compact
countries and two new threshold
countries is consistent with the highly
selective standard the Board has
previously established.
Countries Newly Selected for Compact
Eligibility
Using the criteria described above,
Benin and El Salvador 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)),
Benin is one of the poorest countries in
the world, but maintains relatively
strong policy performance. It is
particularly strong in the Ruling Justly
category, where it passes all six
indicators, and is recognized as a stable,
democratic country in West Africa. In
FY12, Benin passed the new indicator
criteria, but it did not pass the old
indicator criteria, due to performance in
the Investing in People category. Both
scorecards for Benin can be found here:
https://www.mcc.gov/scorecards. By
compact conclusion, Benin delivered all
core construction targets and undertook
an ambitious and complex series of
policy reforms. This included letting a
major port concession, undertaking
changes to customs and port procedures
designed to reduce corruption and
improve port efficiency, and making
improvements in the microfinance
regulatory system. These activities
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:17 Dec 21, 2011
Jkt 226001
allowed the Government of Benin to
address some of their greatest
development challenges and create new
opportunities for economic growth.
Over the next 20 years, MCC’s port
investment in Benin is expected to
affect a regional import-export facility
that not only serves the entire
population of Benin, but also provides
meaningful trade capacity for Mali,
Niger, Burkina Faso, and Nigeria.
Increased imports and exports could
also open up the potential for new
market and trade opportunities for U.S.
businesses.
This port project serves as an example
of MCC and the Government of Benin
working together to address a complex
project that combined ambitious
infrastructure investments and policy
reform. While projects with this level of
complexity are difficult, they embody
MCC’s mandate of reducing poverty
through economic growth in poor, wellgoverned countries.
As a candidate country under section
606(b) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7705(b)), El
Salvador is a reform oriented country
with a strong democracy and favorable
investment policies. In FY12, El
Salvador passed the new indicator
criteria, but it did not pass the old
indicator criteria, due to performance in
the Investing in People category. Both
scorecards for El Salvador can be found
here: https://www.mcc.gov/scorecards. El
Salvador’s current compact is on track
to achieving re-scoped objectives, and
the investment is managed by a strong
country-led MCA unit. At the compact
mid-point, MCA-El Salvador was able to
assume procurement responsibilities
directly, which was a key step in
resolving early delays in the
procurement process, and setting the
compact on track to achieve key targets.
Throughout compact development and
implementation, El Salvador has
consistently demonstrated a
commitment to take positive actions in
pursuit of poverty reduction and
economic growth. El Salvador is one of
only four countries to be included as a
pilot country for the Partnership for
Growth (PFG) initiative. El Salvador’s
role as a pilot PFG country makes it
uniquely situated to utilize compact
resources effectively. In 2011, El
Salvador completed an economic
constraints analysis, an exercise that
forms the basis of MCC’s compact
development process. There is a highcapacity and experienced MCA team
already in operation, and the
Government of El Salvador and U.S.
Government have, through the PFG,
both committed to focusing energy and
resources towards combating specific
constraints to growth.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
79713
Countries Re-Selected To Continue
Compact Development
Four of the countries selected as
eligible for MCA compact assistance in
FY12 were previously selected as
eligible. Reselection allows them to
continue compact development and
receive funding from FY 2012. Two of
these countries are in the LIC category:
Ghana and Zambia. Two countries,
Georgia 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
initial selection, there has been no
material change in their performance on
the indicator criteria that indicates a
serious decline in policy performance.
All four countries pass both sets of
scorecards.
Countries Newly Selected for Threshold
Program Eligibility
For FY12, the Board selected Nepal
and Honduras as eligible for threshold
assistance. Nepal has not only been a
consistently strong scorecard performer
for multiple years (in FY12, it passed
both scorecards), but it has also
achieved a recent breakthrough in the
implementation of its peace process,
which is expected to help move forward
the process of drafting a constitution
and normalizing the political process.
Honduras passes 16 of 20 indicators on
the scorecard and performs just below
the median on Control of Corruption.
Honduras was a good partner and
successfully completed a compact in
2010. Since suffering a serious setback—
the political crisis of 2009—the
government has taken a number of
significant steps to restore the country’s
positive trajectory, in particular, taking
steps to improve control of corruption
through improved fiscal transparency.
These selections are consistent with
the recently re-designed threshold
program. In FY 2010, MCC completed a
review of its Threshold Program and
developed a body of lessons learned.
Under the re-designed concept, the new
threshold country programs will no
longer focus explicitly on trying to move
indicator scores. Rather, the program
will allow countries to diagnose binding
constraints to economic growth and
demonstrate the capacity and political
will to make difficult policy reforms in
partnership with MCC. This will
contribute directly to the Board’s
understanding of a country’s capacity to
undertake the type of policy reforms
typically required to enable a compact
investment to have maximum
sustainable impact.
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
79714
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Notices
Ongoing Review of Partner Countries’
Policy Performance
The Board also reviewed the policy
performance of countries that are
implementing compacts. 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 does not
consider the country for reselection on
an annual basis during the term of its
compact. The Board emphasized the
need for all partner countries to
continue to improve their environment.
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.
Selection To Initiate the Compact
Process
The Board also authorized MCC to
invite Benin and El Salvador 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.
[FR Doc. 2011–32733 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211–03–P
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
CORPORATION
Premium Changes Based On
Recharacterization of Contributions
Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
ACTION: Policy statement.
AGENCY:
This policy statement
addresses PBGC’s policy on accepting
and responding to amended premium
filings based on recharacterization of
contributions. Recharacterization of
contributions refers to a situation in
which contributions originally
designated as being for the plan year in
which they were made are retroactively
redesignated as being for the preceding
plan year. This makes plan assets for the
current year higher, and the plan’s
variable-rate premium lower, than
originally reported. Such
recharacterization seeks not to correct a
factual error but to change a valid
designation and is not an appropriate
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:17 Dec 21, 2011
Jkt 226001
basis for an amended premium filing or
premium refund.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Catherine B. Klion
(klion.catherine@pbgc.gov), Manager, or
Deborah C. Murphy
(murphy.deborah@pbgc.gov), Attorney,
Regulatory and Policy Division,
Legislative and Regulatory Department,
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
1200 K Street NW., Washington DC
20005–4026; (202) 326–4024. (TTY and
TDD users may call the Federal relay
service toll free at 1–(800) 877–8339 and
ask to be connected to (202) 326–4024.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation (PBGC) administers the
pension insurance program under title
IV of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Under
sections 4006 and 4007 of ERISA, plans
covered by title IV must pay premiums
to PBGC. For single-employer plans,
premiums include an amount (the
variable-rate premium, or VRP) based on
unfunded vested benefits (the excess, if
any, of the value of vested benefits over
the value of plan assets).
A contribution made to a pension
plan during the first eight-and-a-half
months of a plan year may be
characterized as being either for the
current year (the plan year in which it
is made) or for the prior year (the
preceding plan year). The
characterization affects when the
contribution is first reflected in plan
assets. If a contribution is characterized
as being for the prior year, it is treated
as a receivable (which increases plan
assets) as of the beginning of the current
year and thus reduces any VRP for the
current year. If a contribution is
characterized as being for the current
year, it does not increase plan assets as
of the beginning of the current year and
thus does not affect VRP for the current
year.
The year for which a contribution is
made is designated on Schedule SB
(formerly Schedule B) (actuarial
information) to the annual report for the
plan on IRS/DOL/PBGC Form 5500.
PBGC has received a number of
amended premium filings, showing
increased assets and decreased VRP,
supported by amended Schedules SB (or
B) that reflect recharacterization of
contributions, and submitted with a
view to obtaining premium refunds.
PBGC has in practice accepted such
amended filings and granted the
refunds. Upon further consideration of
the matter, however, PBGC has
concluded that in general, such
amendments should be rejected and the
associated premium refunds denied.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Permitting the amendment of
premium filings gives filers a way to
correct mistakes in the data reported in
the filings. Where the correction of
erroneous data results in a lower
premium, it is appropriate to refund the
amount of the overpayment. However,
recharacterization of a contribution does
not correct a mistake; rather, it seeks to
undo a valid designation of the year for
which the contribution was made. Thus,
it is not an appropriate basis for
amending the relevant premium filing
and claiming a refund.1
PBGC’s consideration of amended
premium filings takes into account the
facts and circumstances of each case. In
general, however, as explained above,
PBGC’s policy will be to reject amended
filings and deny refunds based on
recharacterization of contributions.
For questions about premium filings,
contact Robert Callahan
(callahan.robert@pbgc.gov) or Bill
O’Neill (oneill.bill@pbgc.gov), Financial
Operations Department; (202) 346–4067.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 16th day of
December, 2011.
Joshua Gotbaum,
Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2011–32804 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7709–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–65991; File No. 4–566]
Program for Allocation of Regulatory
Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d–
2; Notice of Filing and Order
Approving and Declaring Effective an
Amendment to the Plan for the
Allocation of Regulatory
Responsibilities Among BATS
Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange,
Inc., Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago
Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA
Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.,
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, National
Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock
Exchange LLC, NYSE Amex LLC, and
NYSE Arca, Inc. Relating to the
Surveillance, Investigation, and
Enforcement of Insider Trading Rules
December 16, 2011.
Notice is hereby given that the
Securities and Exchange Commission
1 The same principles would apply to an
amended filing made with a view to obtaining a
credit against the next year’s premium.
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79712-79714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32733]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION
[MCC FR 11-15]
Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year
2012
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: December 16, 2011.
Melvin F. Williams, Jr.,
VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Millennium Challenge
Corporation.
Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2012
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:
The countries that are ``candidate countries'' for MCA assistance
during fiscal year 2012 (``FY12'') 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)));
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
The list of countries determined by the Board to be ``MCA eligible
countries'' for FY12, 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 FY12.
It identifies countries determined by the Board to be eligible under
section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY12 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. This year, for the first time, the report also identifies
countries determined by the Board to be eligible for MCC's Threshold
Program under section 616 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7715).
Eligible Countries
The Board met on December 15, 2011, to select countries that will
be eligible for MCA compact assistance under section 607 of the Act (22
U.S.C. 7706) for FY12. The Board selected the following countries as
eligible for such assistance for FY12: Benin, Cape Verde, El Salvador,
Georgia, Ghana, and Zambia.
Criteria
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 2012''
formally submitted to the Congress on September 29, 2011, selection was
based primarily on a country's overall performance in three broad
policy categories: Ruling Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom, and
Investing in People. The Board relied, to the maximum extent possible,
upon 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'').
As outlined in the ``Report on the Criteria and Methodology for
Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium
Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2012'', a number of changes
were adopted to update the criteria and methodology for FY12. MCC
published and the Board considered both the traditional and updated
scorecards this year. MCC plans to transition to exclusive use of the
updated scorecard in the future, and there was deeper consideration of
performance on the new scorecard for FY12. When performance differed
across the scorecards, MCC outlined the reasons for the Board.
Scorecards reflecting each country's performance on the indicators are
available on MCC's Web site at https://www.mcc.gov/scorecards.
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, investments in human development outcomes, or
poverty rates. In keeping with legislative directives, the Board also
considered the opportunity to reduce poverty and promote economic
growth in a country, in light of the overall information available, as
well as the availability of appropriated funds.
This was the third 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)). MCC has no explicit preference for either
new or subsequent compacts, and sees the Board's selection decision as
an annual opportunity to determine where MCC funds can be most
effectively invested to support poverty reduction through economic
growth in relatively well-governed, poor countries. However, in light
of the fact that a large share of the best-governed low and lower-
middle income countries are already MCC partners, subsequent compacts
are likely to be a consistent part of MCC's compact portfolio.
[[Page 79713]]
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
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. To the greatest
extent possible, this was assessed using pre-existing monitoring and
evaluation targets and regular quarterly reporting. This information
was supplemented with direct surveys and consultation with MCC staff
responsible for compact implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.
As with previous years, 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 FY12. MCC
is aware that some stakeholders expressed concern that using the
updated scorecard criteria might make the Board less selective in its
eligibility decisions. This was not the case. The selection of two new
compact countries and two new threshold countries is consistent with
the highly selective standard the Board has previously established.
Countries Newly Selected for Compact Eligibility
Using the criteria described above, Benin and El Salvador 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)), Benin is one of the poorest countries in the world, but
maintains relatively strong policy performance. It is particularly
strong in the Ruling Justly category, where it passes all six
indicators, and is recognized as a stable, democratic country in West
Africa. In FY12, Benin passed the new indicator criteria, but it did
not pass the old indicator criteria, due to performance in the
Investing in People category. Both scorecards for Benin can be found
here: https://www.mcc.gov/scorecards. By compact conclusion, Benin
delivered all core construction targets and undertook an ambitious and
complex series of policy reforms. This included letting a major port
concession, undertaking changes to customs and port procedures designed
to reduce corruption and improve port efficiency, and making
improvements in the microfinance regulatory system. These activities
allowed the Government of Benin to address some of their greatest
development challenges and create new opportunities for economic
growth. Over the next 20 years, MCC's port investment in Benin is
expected to affect a regional import-export facility that not only
serves the entire population of Benin, but also provides meaningful
trade capacity for Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, and Nigeria. Increased
imports and exports could also open up the potential for new market and
trade opportunities for U.S. businesses.
This port project serves as an example of MCC and the Government of
Benin working together to address a complex project that combined
ambitious infrastructure investments and policy reform. While projects
with this level of complexity are difficult, they embody MCC's mandate
of reducing poverty through economic growth in poor, well-governed
countries.
As a candidate country under section 606(b) of the Act (22 U.S.C.
7705(b)), El Salvador is a reform oriented country with a strong
democracy and favorable investment policies. In FY12, El Salvador
passed the new indicator criteria, but it did not pass the old
indicator criteria, due to performance in the Investing in People
category. Both scorecards for El Salvador can be found here: https://www.mcc.gov/scorecards. El Salvador's current compact is on track to
achieving re-scoped objectives, and the investment is managed by a
strong country-led MCA unit. At the compact mid-point, MCA-El Salvador
was able to assume procurement responsibilities directly, which was a
key step in resolving early delays in the procurement process, and
setting the compact on track to achieve key targets. Throughout compact
development and implementation, El Salvador has consistently
demonstrated a commitment to take positive actions in pursuit of
poverty reduction and economic growth. El Salvador is one of only four
countries to be included as a pilot country for the Partnership for
Growth (PFG) initiative. El Salvador's role as a pilot PFG country
makes it uniquely situated to utilize compact resources effectively. In
2011, El Salvador completed an economic constraints analysis, an
exercise that forms the basis of MCC's compact development process.
There is a high-capacity and experienced MCA team already in operation,
and the Government of El Salvador and U.S. Government have, through the
PFG, both committed to focusing energy and resources towards combating
specific constraints to growth.
Countries Re-Selected To Continue Compact Development
Four of the countries selected as eligible for MCA compact
assistance in FY12 were previously selected as eligible. Reselection
allows them to continue compact development and receive funding from FY
2012. Two of these countries are in the LIC category: Ghana and Zambia.
Two countries, Georgia 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 initial selection, there has been no material change in
their performance on the indicator criteria that indicates a serious
decline in policy performance. All four countries pass both sets of
scorecards.
Countries Newly Selected for Threshold Program Eligibility
For FY12, the Board selected Nepal and Honduras as eligible for
threshold assistance. Nepal has not only been a consistently strong
scorecard performer for multiple years (in FY12, it passed both
scorecards), but it has also achieved a recent breakthrough in the
implementation of its peace process, which is expected to help move
forward the process of drafting a constitution and normalizing the
political process. Honduras passes 16 of 20 indicators on the scorecard
and performs just below the median on Control of Corruption. Honduras
was a good partner and successfully completed a compact in 2010. Since
suffering a serious setback--the political crisis of 2009--the
government has taken a number of significant steps to restore the
country's positive trajectory, in particular, taking steps to improve
control of corruption through improved fiscal transparency.
These selections are consistent with the recently re-designed
threshold program. In FY 2010, MCC completed a review of its Threshold
Program and developed a body of lessons learned. Under the re-designed
concept, the new threshold country programs will no longer focus
explicitly on trying to move indicator scores. Rather, the program will
allow countries to diagnose binding constraints to economic growth and
demonstrate the capacity and political will to make difficult policy
reforms in partnership with MCC. This will contribute directly to the
Board's understanding of a country's capacity to undertake the type of
policy reforms typically required to enable a compact investment to
have maximum sustainable impact.
[[Page 79714]]
Ongoing Review of Partner Countries' Policy Performance
The Board also reviewed the policy performance of countries that
are implementing compacts. 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 does not
consider the country for reselection on an annual basis during the term
of its compact. The Board emphasized the need for all partner countries
to continue to improve their environment. 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.
Selection To Initiate the Compact Process
The Board also authorized MCC to invite Benin and El Salvador 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.
[FR Doc. 2011-32733 Filed 12-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211-03-P