Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2016, 58307-58314 [2015-24490]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 187 / Monday, September 28, 2015 / Notices
licenses that incorporate or otherwise
reflect WSA agreement terms, it is also
the case that they are entitled to weigh
the value of any such evidence in light
of the overall circumstances of the
marketplace, including any general
impact of the WSA agreements.
As discussed above, in rate
determinations, the CRJs are tasked with
replicating a ‘‘hypothetical market’’
where ‘‘the webcasting statutory license
[does] not exist.’’ 86 Among the tools at
the CRJs’ disposal to accomplish this
task are ‘‘the rates and terms for
comparable types of digital audio
transmission services and comparable
circumstances under voluntary license
agreements.’’ 87 As Webcasters seem to
acknowledge, when considering a
voluntary agreement, the CRJs may
consider whether an agreement was
made in the ‘‘shadow’’ of a statutory rate
or WSA agreement in evaluating its
worth as a benchmark.88 As the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has
stressed, ‘‘[i]t is generally within the
discretion of the Judges to assess
evidence of an agreement’s
comparability and to decide whether to
look to its rates and terms for
guidance.’’ 89 This ‘‘broad discretion’’
includes the ability to ‘‘discount . . .
benchmarks’’ offered by the parties.90
Although section 114(f)(5)(C) may
preclude the consideration or
comparison of individual rates and
terms contained in the WSA
agreements, it does not prevent the CRJs
from considering the agreements at all.
Section 114(f)(5)(C) bars the CRJs from
considering the terms of agreements
negotiated under the 2009 WSA.
Nowhere does the statute suggest that
the mere existence of such agreements,
or their general effect on the
marketplace or particular negotiations,
may not be considered. As noted above,
the statutory language is specific in
limiting the scope of the prohibition to
the ‘‘provisions of any [WSA]
agreement.’’ 91 Section 114(f)(5)(C)
provides examples of the types of
provisions Congress had in mind: ‘‘rate
structure, fees, terms, conditions, or
notice and recordkeeping
requirements.’’ 92 This list, which
appears twice in subparagraph (C),93
makes clear that the ban applies only to
a WSA agreement’s specific terms, as
embodied in particular provisions.
A recent case from federal district
court in the Southern District of New
York speaks to this issue.94 As part of
a rate determination for the performance
of musical compositions by Pandora in
a ratesetting proceeding conducted
under a federal consent decree, the
court discussed section 114(i) of the
Copyright Act, which contains the same
‘‘taken into account’’ language as
section 114(f)(5)(C).95 Section 114(i)
provides relevant part:
License fees payable for the public
performance of sound recordings under
section 106(6) shall not be taken into
account in any administrative, judicial,
or other governmental proceeding to set
or adjust the royalties payable to
copyright owners of musical works for
the public performance of their works.96
During the course of the federal court
proceeding, the licensing organization,
ASCAP, the licensor, proposed a variety
of benchmarks for the court to consider,
including a series of licensing
agreements negotiated directly between
copyright owners and licensees outside
of the consent decree process.97 At trial,
the parties disputed the extent to which
the court could consider evidence
relating to the rate for the public
performance of sound recordings (as
opposed to musical works).98 While the
presiding judge noted that she could
‘‘not take the [sound recording rate] into
account in determining the fair market
rate for a public performance license
[for musical compositions],’’ she went
on to state that ‘‘one observation may be
safely made’’: 99
I don’t understand that that testimony
about motive in negotiations and
turmoil within ASCAP over these
different rates [for sound recordings]
would be inadmissible pursuant to
Section 114. Indeed, I think it would be
difficult to deal with the facts on the
ground as they exist and to set a rate
that is reasonable in the context of the
facts . . . without knowing about
that.100
93 17
U.S.C. 114(f)(5)(C).
94 See
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
86 Intercollegiate
Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Copyright
Royalty Bd., 796 F.3d 111, 131 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
(internal alterations omitted).
87 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(2)(B).
88 See Pandora Responsive Br. at 10–11;
iHeartMedia Responsive Br. at 12.
89 Intercollegiate Broad. Sys. v. Copyright Royalty
Bd., 574 F.3d 748, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
90 Music Choice v. Copyright Royalty Bd., 774
F.3d 1000, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
91 See 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(5)(C) (emphasis added).
92 See id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Sep 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
In re Pandora Media, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d
317 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
95 See id. at 366–67.
96 17 U.S.C. 114(i).
97 In re Pandora Media, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d at 320.
98 Transcript of Trial at 729:18–733:1, In re
Pandora Media, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d 317 (S.D.N.Y.
2014) (Nos. 12 Civ. 8035, 41 Civ. 1395).
99 In re Pandora Media, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d at
366–67.
100 Transcript of Trial at 731:1–7, In re Pandora
Media, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (Nos.
12 Civ. 8035, 41 Civ. 1395).
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
58307
This commentary in the consent decree
case further supports the Register’s
determination that evidence concerning
the general impact and influence of the
WSA agreements—and the statutory
licensing regime that gave rise to them—
may appropriately be considered by the
CRJs in evaluating the probative value of
the direct agreements.
September 18, 2015
Maria A. Pallante
Register of Copyrights and Director, United
States Copyright Office.
[FR Doc. 2015–24591 Filed 9–25–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE
CORPORATION
[MCC FR 15–03]
Report on the Criteria and
Methodology for Determining the
Eligibility of Candidate Countries for
Millennium Challenge Account
Assistance in Fiscal Year 2016
Millennium Challenge
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
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’’).
SUMMARY:
Dated: September 22, 2015.
Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong,
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 in Fiscal
Year 2016
Summary
In accordance with section 608(b)(2)
of the Millennium Challenge Act of
2003 (the ‘‘Act’’, 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)(1)),
the Millennium Challenge Corporation
(MCC) is submitting the following
report. This report identifies the criteria
and methodology that the Millennium
Challenge Corporation (MCC) intends to
use to determine which candidate
countries may be eligible to be
considered for assistance under the Act
for FY 2016.
Under section 608 (c)(1) of the Act,
MCC will, for a thirty-day period
following publication, accept and
consider public comment for purposes
of determining eligible countries under
section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706).
E:\FR\FM\28SEN1.SGM
28SEN1
58308
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 187 / Monday, September 28, 2015 / Notices
Criteria and Methodology for FY 2016
This document explains how the
Board of Directors (Board) of the
Millennium Challenge Corporation
(MCC) will identify, evaluate, and
determine eligibility of countries for
Millennium Challenge Account (MCA)
assistance for fiscal year (FY) 2016. The
statutory basis for this report is set forth
in Appendix A. Specifically, this
document discusses:
I. Which Countries MCC Will Evaluate
II. How the Board Evaluates These Countries
A. Overall
B. For Selection for First Compact
Eligibility
C. For Selection for Second/Subsequent
Compact Eligibility
D. For Selection for the Threshold Program
E. A Note on Potential Regional
Investments
I. Which countries are evaluated?
As discussed in the August 2015
Report on Countries that are Candidates
for Millennium Challenge Account
Eligibility for Fiscal Year 2016 and
Countries that Would be Candidates but
for Legal Prohibitions (the ‘‘Candidate
Country Report’’), MCC evaluates all
low-income countries (LICs) and lowermiddle income countries (LMICs)
countries as follows:
• For scorecard evaluation purposes
for FY 2016, MCC defines LICs as those
countries between $0 and $1985 GNI
per capita, and LMICs as those countries
between $1986 and $4125 GNI per
capita.1
• For funding purposes for FY 2016,
MCC defines the poorest 75 countries as
LICs, and the remaining countries up to
the upper-middle income (UMIC)
threshold of $4125 as LMICs.2
Under Appendix B, lists of all LICS,
LMICS and statutorily prohibited
countries for evaluation purposes are
provided. The list using the ‘‘funding’’
definition was outlined in the FY 2016
Candidate Country Report and describes
how funding categories work.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
II. How does the Board evaluate these
countries?
A. Overall Evaluation
The Board looks at three legislativelymandated factors in its evaluation of
any candidate country for compact
eligibility: (1) Policy performance; (2)
the opportunity to reduce poverty and
generate economic growth; and (3) the
availability of MCC funds.
1 This
corresponds to LIC and LMIC definitions
using the historic International Development
Association (IDA) thresholds published by the
World Bank.
2 By law, no more than 25 percent of all compact
funds for a given fiscal year may be provided to
LMIC countries (using this ‘‘funding’’ definition).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Sep 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
1. Policy Performance
Because of the importance of needing
to evaluate a country’s policy
performance—and needing to do so in a
comparable, cross-country way—the
Board relies to the maximum extent
possible upon the best-available
objective and quantifiable indicators of
policy performance. These indicators
act as proxies of the country’s
commitment to good governance, as laid
out in MCC’s founding legislation.
Comprised of 20 third-party indicators
in the categories of ‘‘encouraging
economic freedom,’’ ‘‘investing in
people,’’ and ‘‘ruling justly,’’ MCC
‘‘scorecards’’ are created for all LICs and
LMICs. To ‘‘pass’’ the indicators on the
scorecard, the country must perform
above the median among its income
group (as defined above), except in the
cases of inflation, political rights, civil
liberties, and immunization rates
(LMICs only), where threshold scores
have been established. In particular, the
Board considers whether the country:
• Passed at least 10 of the 20
indicators, with at least one in each
category,
• Passed the ‘‘Control of Corruption’’
indicator, and
• Passed either the ‘‘Political Rights’’
or ‘‘Civil Liberties’’ indicator.
While satisfaction of all three aspects
means a country is termed to have
‘‘passed’’ the scorecard, the Board also
considers whether the country
performed ‘‘substantially worse’’ in any
one policy category than it does on the
scorecard overall. Appendix C describes
all 20 indicators, their definitions, what
is required to ‘‘pass,’’ their source, and
their relationship to the legislative
criteria.
The 20 policy performance indicators
are the predominant basis for
determining which countries will be
eligible for MCC assistance, and the
Board expects a country to be passing its
scorecard at the point the Board decides
to select the country for either a first or
second/subsequent compact. However,
the Board also recognizes that even the
best-available data has inherent
challenges. For example, data gaps, realtime events versus data lags, the absence
of narratives and nuanced detail, and
other similar weaknesses affect each of
these indicators. In such instances, the
Board uses its judgment to interpret
policy performance as measured by the
scorecards. The Board may also consult
other sources of information to further
enhance its understanding of a given
country’s policy performance beyond
the issues on the scorecard, which is
especially useful given the unique
perspective of each Board member (e.g.,
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
specific policy issues related to trade,
civil society, other U.S. aid programs,
financial sector performance, and
security/foreign policy issues). The
Board uses its judgment on how best to
weigh such information in assessing
overall policy performance.
2. The Opportunity To Reduce Poverty
and Generate Economic Growth
The Board also consults other sources
of qualitative and quantitative
information to have a more detailed
view of the opportunity to reduce
poverty and generate economic growth
in a country.
While the Board considers a range of
other information sources depending on
the country, specific areas of attention
typically include better understanding
the issues on, trends in, and trajectory
of:
• The control of corruption and rule
of law;
• The state of democratic and human
rights (especially of vulnerable
groups 3);
• The perspective of civil society on
salient governance issues;
• The potential for the private sector
(both local and foreign) to lead
investment and growth;
• The levels of poverty within a
country; and
• The country’s institutional capacity.
Where applicable, the Board also
considers MCC’s own experience and
ability to reduce poverty and generate
economic growth in a given country—
such as considering MCC’s core skills
versus the country’s needs, capacity
within MCC to work with a country, and
the likelihood that MCC is seen by the
country as a credible partner.
This information provides greater
clarity on the likelihood that MCC
investments will have an appreciable
impact on reducing poverty and
generating economic growth in a given
country. The Board has used such
information both to not select countries
that are otherwise passing their
scorecards, as well as to better
understand when a country’s
performance on a particular indicator
may not be up to date or is about to
change. More details on this subject
(sometimes referred to as ‘‘supplemental
information’’) can be found on MCC’s
Web site at https://www.mcc.gov/pages/
docs/doc/pub-guide-to-supplementalinformation-fy15.
3. The Availability of MCC Funds
The final factor that the Board must
consider when evaluating countries is
3 For example, women; children; lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender individuals; people with
disabilities; and workers.
E:\FR\FM\28SEN1.SGM
28SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 187 / Monday, September 28, 2015 / Notices
C. Evaluation for Selection of Countries
for Second/Subsequent Compact
Eligibility
B. Evaluation for Selection of Countries
for First Compact Eligibility
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
the funding available. The agency’s
allocation of its budget is constrained,
and often specifically limited, by
provisions in the authorizing legislation
and appropriations acts. MCC has a
continuous pipeline of countries in
compact development, compact
implementation, and compact closeout,
as well as threshold programs.
Consequently, the Board factors in the
overall portfolio picture when making
its selection decisions given the funding
available for each of the agency’s
planned or existing programs.
The following sub-sections describe
how each of these three legislativelymandated factors are applied with
regard to the selection situations the
Board encounters each December:
Selection of countries for first compact
eligibility, selection of countries for
second/subsequent compact eligibility,
and selection of countries for the
threshold program. Thereafter, a note is
included on consideration of countries
for potential regional investments.
1. Successful Implementation of the
Previous Compact
When selecting countries for compact
eligibility, the Board looks at all three
legislatively-mandated aspects
described in the previous section: (1)
Policy performance, first and foremost
as measured by the scorecards and
bolstered through additional
information (as described in the
previous section); (2) the opportunity to
reduce poverty and generate economic
growth, examined through the use of
other supporting information (as
described in the previous section); and
(3) the funding available.
At a minimum, the Board looks to see
that the country passes its scorecard. It
also examines supporting evidence that
the country’s commitment to good
governance is on a sound footing and
performance is on a positive trajectory,
and that MCC has funding to support a
meaningful compact with that country.
Where applicable, previous threshold
program information is also considered.
The Board then weighs the information
described above across each of the three
dimensions.
The approach described above is then
applied in any additional years of
selection of a country to continue to
develop a first compact, with the added
benefit of having cumulative scorecards,
cumulative records of policy
performance, and other accumulated
supporting information to determine the
overall pattern of performance over the
emerging multi-year trajectory.
To evaluate the degree of success of
the previous compact, the Board looks
to see if there is a clear evidence base
of success within the budget and time
limits of the compact, in particular by
looking at three aspects:
• The degree to which there is
evidence of strong political will and
management capacity: Is the partnership
characterized by the country ensuring
that both policy reforms and the
compact program itself are being
implemented to the best ability that the
country can deliver;
• The degree to which the country
has exhibited commitment and capacity
to achieve program results: Are the
financial and project results being
achieved; to what degree is the country
committing its own resources to ensure
the compact is a success; to what extent
is the private sector engaged (if
relevant); and other compact-specific
issues; and
• The degree to which the country
has implemented the compact in
accordance with MCC’s core policies
and standards: That is, is the country
adhering to MCC’s policies and
procedures, including in critical areas
such as remediating unresolved fraud
and corruption and abuse or misuse of
funds issues; procurement; and
monitoring and evaluation.
Details on the specific types of
information examined (and sources
used) in each of the three areas are
provided in Appendix D. Overall, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Sep 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
Section 609(k) of the Millennium
Challenge Act of 2003, as amended,
specifically authorizes MCC to enter
into ‘‘one or more subsequent
Compacts.’’ MCC does not consider
subsequent compact eligibility,
however, before countries have
completed their compact, or are within
18 months of completion, (e.g., a second
compact if they have completed or are
within 18 months of completing their
first compact).
Selection for subsequent compacts is
not automatic and is intended only for
countries that (1) exhibit successful
performance on their previous compact;
(2) exhibit improved scorecard policy
performance during the partnership;
and (3) exhibit a continued commitment
to further their sector reform efforts in
any subsequent partnership. As a result,
the Board has an even higher standard
when selecting countries for subsequent
compacts.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
58309
Board is looking for evidence that the
previous compact will be completed or
has been completed successfully, on
time and on budget, and that there is a
commitment to continued, robust
reform going forward.
2. Improved Scorecard Policy
Performance
Beyond successful implementation of
the previous compact, the Board expects
the country to have improved its overall
scorecard policy performance during the
partnership, and to pass the scorecard in
the year of selection for the subsequent
compact. The Board focuses on:
• The overall scorecard pass/fail rate
over time, what this suggests about
underlying policy performance, as well
as an examination of the underlying
reasons;
• The progress over time on policy
areas measured by both hard-hurdle
indicators—Control of Corruption, and
Democratic Rights—including an
examination of the underlying reasons;
and
• Other indicator trajectories as
deemed relevant by the Board.
In all cases, while the Board expects
the country to be passing its scorecard,
other sources of information are
examined to understand the nuance and
reasons behind scorecard or indicator
performance over time, including any
real-time updates, methodological
changes within the indicators
themselves, shifts in the relevant
candidate pool, or alternative policy
performance perspectives (such as
gleaned through consultations with civil
society and related stakeholders). Other
sources of information are also
consulted to look at policy performance
over time in areas not covered by the
scorecard, but that are deemed
important by the Board (such as trade,
foreign policy concerns, etc.).
3. A Commitment to Further Sector
Reform
The Board expects that subsequent
compacts will endeavor to tackle deeper
policy reforms necessary to unlock an
identified constraint to growth.
Consequently, the Board considers its
own experience during the previous
compact in considering how committed
the country is to reducing poverty and
increasing economic growth, and
therefore tries to gauge the country’s
commitment for further sector reform
should it be selected for a subsequent
compact. This includes:
• Assessing the country’s delivery of
policy reform during the previous
compact (as described above);
• Assessing expectations of the
country’s ability and willingness to
E:\FR\FM\28SEN1.SGM
28SEN1
58310
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 187 / Monday, September 28, 2015 / Notices
continue embarking on sector policy
reform in a subsequent compact;
• Examining both other sources of
information that describe the nature of
the opportunity to reduce poverty and
generate growth (as outlined in A.2
above), and the relative success of the
previous compact overall, as already
discussed; and
• Finally, considering how well
funding can be leveraged for impact,
given its experience in the previous
compact.
Through this overall approach to
subsequent compact selection, the
Board applies the three legislatively
mandated evaluation criteria (policy
performance, the opportunity to reduce
poverty and generate economic growth,
and the funding available) in a way that
rests critically on deeply assessing the
previous partnership: From a compact
success standpoint, a commitment to
improved scorecard policy performance
standpoint, and a commitment to
continued sector policy reform
standpoint. The Board then weighs all
of the information described above in
making its decision.
The approach described above is then
applied in any additional years of
selection necessary as the country
continues to develop the subsequent
compact, with the added benefit of
having even further detail on previous
compact implementation, cumulative
scorecards, records of policy
performance, and other accumulated
supporting information to determine the
overall pattern of performance over the
resulting multi-year trajectory.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
D. Evaluation for Eligibility for
Threshold Programs
The Board may also select countries
to participate in the Threshold Program.
The Threshold Program provides
assistance to candidate countries that
exhibit a significant commitment to
meeting the eligibility criteria described
in the previous sub-sections, but fail to
meet such requirements. Specifically, in
examining the policy performance, the
opportunity to reduce poverty and
generate economic growth, and the
funding available, the Board will
consider whether a country potentially
eligible for threshold program assistance
appears to be on a trajectory to
becoming a viable contender for
compact eligibility in the medium term.
E. A Note on Potential Regional
Investments
FY 2016 marks the first year that the
Board may consider selecting countries
where potential regional investments
(i.e., cross-border investments) may be
developed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Sep 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
With respect to regional investments,
the fundamental criteria and process for
selection will remain unchanged:
Countries will continue to be evaluated
and selected individually, as described
in sections A, B, and C above. However,
for countries where regional
investments might be contemplated, the
Board will also examine additional
supplemental information looking at the
policy environment from a regional
dimension.
Specifically, the Board will examine
additional data and information related
to:
• The current state of the country’s
political and economic integration with
its region and neighbors;
• Impediments to further integration
with its region and neighbors; and
• The potential gains from investing
at a regional level, including illustrative
potential sector opportunities.
The Board will weigh this additional
regional information in tandem with the
other supplemental factors described
earlier in sections A, B, and C. The
Board will then decide whether or not
it will direct MCC to explore some form
of a regional investment with the
country.
Appendix A: Statutory Basis for This
Report
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).
Section 605 of the Act authorizes the
provision of assistance to countries that
enter into a Millennium Challenge
Compact with the United States to
support policies and programs that
advance the progress of such countries
in achieving lasting economic growth
and poverty reduction. The Act requires
MCC to take a number of steps in
selecting countries for compact
assistance for FY 2016 based on the
countries’ demonstrated commitment to
just and democratic governance,
economic freedom, and investing in
their people, MCC’s opportunity to
reduce poverty and generate economic
growth in the country, and the
availability of funds. These steps
include the submission of reports to the
congressional committees specified in
the Act and publication of information
in the Federal Register that identify:
1. The countries that are ‘‘candidate
countries’’ for MCA assistance for FY
2016 based on per capita income levels
and eligibility to receive assistance
under U.S. law. (section 608(a) of the
Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(a));
2. The criteria and methodology that
MCC’s Board of Directors (Board) will
use to measure and evaluate policy
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
performance of the candidate countries
consistent with the requirements of
section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706)
in order to determine ‘‘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 ‘‘eligible countries’’ for
FY 2016, with justification for eligibility
determination and selection for compact
negotiation, including those eligible
countries with which MCC will seek to
enter into compacts (section 608(d) of
the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(d)).
This report reflects the satisfaction of
item #2 above.
Appendix B: Lists of all LICs, LMICs,
and Statutorily Prohibited Countries for
Evaluation Purposes Income
Classification for Scorecards
Since MCC was created, it has relied
on the World Bank’s gross national
income (GNI) per capita income data
(Atlas method) and the historical ceiling
for eligibility as set by the World Bank’s
International Development Association
(IDA) to divide countries into two
income categories for purposes of
creating scorecards: LICs and LMICs.
These categories are used to account for
the income bias that occurs when
countries with more per capita
resources perform better than countries
with fewer. Using the historical IDA
eligibility ceiling for the scorecards
ensures that the poorest countries
compete with their income level peers
and are not compared against countries
with more resources to mobilize.
MCC will continue to use the
traditional income categories for
eligibility to categorize countries in two
groups for purposes of FY 2016
scorecard comparisons:
• LICs are countries with GNI per
capita below IDA’s historical ceiling for
eligibility ($1,985 for FY 2016); and
• LMICs are countries with GNI per
capita above IDA’s historical ceiling for
eligibility but below the World Bank’s
upper middle income country threshold
($1,986—$4,125 for FY 2016).
The list of countries categorized as
LICs and LMICs for the purpose of FY
2016 scorecard assessments can be
found below.4
4 In December 2011, a statutory change requested
by MCC altered the way MCC must group countries
for the purposes of applying MCC’s 25 percent
LMIC funding cap. This change, designed to bring
stability to the funding stream, affects how MCC
funds countries selected for compacts and does not
affect the way scorecards are created. For
determining whether a country can be funded as an
LMIC or LIC:
• The poorest 75 countries are now considered
LICs for the purposes of MCC funding. They are not
limited by the 25 percent funding cap on LMICs.
E:\FR\FM\28SEN1.SGM
28SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 187 / Monday, September 28, 2015 / Notices
Low Income Countries (FY 2016
Scorecard)
1. Afghanistan
2. Bangladesh
3. Benin
4. Burkina Faso
5. Burma
6. Burundi
7. Cambodia
8. Cameroon
9. Central African Republic
10. Chad
11. Comoros
12. Congo, the Democratic Republic of
13. Cote d’Ivoire
14. Djibouti
15. Eritrea
16. Ethiopia
17. Gambia
18. Ghana
19. Guinea
20. Guinea-Bissau
21. Haiti
22. India
23. Kenya
24. Korea, Democratic People’s Republic
of
25. Kyrgyz Republic
26. Laos
27. Lesotho
28. Liberia
29. Madagascar
30. Malawi
31. Mali
32. Mauritania
33. Mozambique
34. Nepal
35. Nicaragua
36. Niger
37. Pakistan
38. Rwanda
39. Sao Tome and Principe
40. Senegal
41. Sierra Leone
42. Solomon Islands
43. Somalia
44. South Sudan
45. Sudan
46. Tajikistan
47. Tanzania
48. Togo
49. Uganda
50. Vietnam
51. Yemen
52. Zambia
53. Zimbabwe
Lower Middle Income Countries (FY
2016 Scorecard)
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1. Armenia
• Countries with a GNI per capita above the
poorest 75 but below the World Bank’s upper
middle income country threshold ($4,125 for FY
2015) are considered LMICs for the purposes of
MCC funding. By law, no more than 25 percent of
all compact funds for a given fiscal year can be
provided to these countries.
The FY 2016 Candidate Country Report lists LICs
and LMICs based on this new definition and
outlines which countries are subject to the 25
percent funding cap.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Sep 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
58311
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.6 Listed below is a
brief summary of the indicators (a
detailed rationale for the adoption of
these indicators can be found in the
Public Guide to the Indicators on MCC’s
public Web site at www.mcc.gov).
2. Bhutan
3. Bolivia
4. Cabo Verde
5. Congo, Republic of
6. Egypt
7. El Salvador
8. Georgia
9. Guatemala
10. Guyana
11. Honduras
12. Indonesia
13. Kiribati
14. Kosovo
15. Micronesia
16. Moldova
17. Morocco
18. Nigeria
19. Papua New Guinea
20. Philippines
21. Samoa
22. Sri Lanka
23. Swaziland
24. Syria
25. Timor-Leste
26. Ukraine
27. Uzbekistan
28. Vanuatu
The following indicators will be used
to measure candidate countries’
demonstrated commitment to the
criteria found 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 (i) their relationship to
Ruling Justly
1. 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. Pass: Score
must be above the minimum score of 17
out of 40. Source: Freedom House
2. 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. Pass: Score
must be above the minimum score of 25
out of 60. Source: Freedom House
3. Freedom of Information: Measures
the legal and practical steps taken by a
government to enable or allow
information to move freely through
society; this includes measures of press
freedom, national freedom of
information laws, and the extent to
which a county is filtering internet
content or tools. Pass: Score must be
above the median score for the income
group. Source: Freedom House/Centre
for Law and Democracy/Access Info
Europe
4. 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. Pass: Score must be above the
5 This list is current as of July 21, 2015. Between
such date and the December 2015 selection Board
meeting, other countries may also be the subject of
future statutory restrictions or determinations, or
changed country circumstances, that affect their
legal eligibility for assistance under part I of the
Foreign Assistance Act by reason of application of
the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision
of law for FY 2016. Even though these countries are
prohibited from receiving assistance, scorecards are
still created for them to ensure all countries are
included in an income group in order to determine
the global medians/scores for that income group.
6 Special note on Kosovo: Since UN agencies do
not currently publish data for Kosovo due to nonrecognition status, MCC is unable to source data
directly from the UN for the six indicators that are
constructed in all or in part from this data: Land
Rights and Access, Health Expenditures, Primary
Education Expenditures, Immunization Rates, Girls’
Secondary Education Enrollment Rate, and Child
Health. As result, MCC publishes data from UNKT
(the UN Kosovo Team) in cases where UNKT uses
comparable methodologies to their UN sister
organizations. See https://www.unkt.org/ for more
information.
Statutorily Prohibited Countries for
FY16 5
1. Bolivia
2. Burma
3. Eritrea
4. North Korea
5. South Sudan
6. Sudan
7. Syria
8. Zimbabwe
Appendix C: Indicator Definitions
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\28SEN1.SGM
28SEN1
58312
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 187 / Monday, September 28, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
median score for the income group.
Source: Worldwide Governance
Indicators (World Bank/Brookings)
5. 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. Pass: Score must be above the
median score for the income group.
Source: Worldwide Governance
Indicators (World Bank/Brookings)
6. 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. Pass:
Score must be above the median score
for the income group. Source:
Worldwide Governance Indicators
(World Bank/Brookings)
Encouraging Economic Freedom
1. Fiscal Policy: The overall budget
balance divided by gross domestic
product (GDP), averaged over a threeyear period. The data for this measure
comes 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. Pass: Score must be
above the median score for the income
group. Source: International Monetary
Fund Country Reports, National
Governments, and the International
Monetary Fund’s World Economic
Outlook Database
2. Inflation: The most recent average
annual change in consumer prices. Pass:
Score must be 15 percent or less.
Source: The International Monetary
Fund’s World Economic Outlook
Database
3. 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. Pass: Score must be above
the median score for the income group.
Source: Worldwide Governance
Indicators (World Bank/Brookings)
4. Trade Policy: A measure of a
country’s openness to international
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Sep 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
trade based on weighted average tariff
rates and non-tariff barriers to trade.
Pass: Score must be above the median
score for the income group. Source: The
Heritage Foundation
5. Gender in the Economy: An index
that measures the extent to which laws
provide men and women equal capacity
to generate income or participate in the
economy, including the capacity to
access institutions, get a job, register a
business, sign a contract, open a bank
account, choose where to live, and to
travel freely. Pass: Score must be above
the median score for the income group.
Source: International Finance
Corporation
6. 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. Pass: Score must be above
the median score for the income group.
Source: The International Fund for
Agricultural Development and the
International Finance Corporation
7. Access to Credit: An index that
rates countries on rules and practices
affecting the coverage, scope, and
accessibility of credit information
available through either a public credit
registry or a private credit bureau; as
well as legal rights in collateral laws
and bankruptcy laws. Pass: Score must
be above the median score for the
income group. Source: International
Finance Corporation
8. 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. Pass: Score must
be above the median score for the
income group. Source: International
Finance Corporation
Investing in People
1. Public Expenditure on Health:
Total expenditures on health by
government at all levels divided by
GDP. Pass: Score must be above the
median score for the income group.
Source: The World Health Organization
2. Total Public Expenditure on
Primary Education: Total expenditures
on primary education by government at
all levels divided by GDP. Pass: Score
must be above the median score for the
income group. Source: The United
Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization and National
Governments
3. Natural Resource Protection:
Assesses whether countries are
protecting up to 17 percent of all their
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
biomes (e.g., deserts, tropical
rainforests, grasslands, savannas and
tundra). Pass: Score must be above the
median score for the income group.
Source: The Center for International
Earth Science Information Network and
the Yale Center for Environmental Law
and Policy
4. Immunization Rates: The average of
DPT3 and measles immunization
coverage rates for the most recent year
available. Pass: Score must be above the
median score for LICs, and 90 percent
or higher for LMICs. Source: The World
Health Organization and the United
Nations Children’s Fund
5. Girls Education:
a. 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). LICs are assessed on this
indicator. Pass: Score must be above the
median score for the income group.
Source: United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization
b. Girls Secondary Enrollment
Education: The number of female pupils
enrolled in lower secondary school,
regardless of age, expressed as a
percentage of the population of females
in the theoretical age group for lower
secondary education. LMICs will be
assessed on this indicator instead of
Girls Primary Completion Rates. Pass:
Score must be above the median score
for the income group. Source: United
Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization
6. Child Health: An index made up of
three indicators: (i) Access to improved
water, (ii) access to improved sanitation,
and (iii) child (ages 1–4) mortality. Pass:
Score must be above the median score
for the income group. Source: The
Center for International Earth Science
Information Network and the Yale
Center for Environmental Law and
Policy
Relationship to Legislative Criteria
Within each policy category, the Act
sets out a number of specific selection
criteria. A set of objective and
quantifiable policy indicators is used to
inform eligibility decisions for MCA
assistance and to measure the relative
performance by candidate countries
against these criteria. The Board’s
approach to determining eligibility
ensures that performance against each of
these criteria is assessed by at least one
of the objective indicators. Most are
addressed by multiple indicators. The
specific indicators appear in
parentheses next to the corresponding
criterion set out in the Act.
E:\FR\FM\28SEN1.SGM
28SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 187 / Monday, September 28, 2015 / Notices
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, Rule of Law, and
Gender in the Economy);
(B) respect human and civil rights,
including the rights of people with
disabilities (Political Rights, Civil
Liberties, and Freedom of Information);
(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, Freedom of
Information, Control of Corruption, Rule
of Law, and Government Effectiveness);
and
(E) combat corruption (Political
Rights, Civil Liberties, Rule of Law,
Freedom of Information, 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, Access
to Credit, Gender in the Economy, and
Regulatory Quality);
(C) strengthen market forces in the
economy (Fiscal Policy, Inflation, Trade
Policy, Business Start-Up, Land Rights
and Access, Access to Credit, and
Regulatory Quality); and
(D respect worker rights, including
the right to form labor unions (Civil
Liberties and Gender in the Economy);
and
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 Completion
Rate, Girls’ Secondary Education
Enrollment Rate, and Total Public
Expenditure on Primary Education);
(B) strengthen and build capacity to
provide quality public health and
reduce child mortality (Immunization
Topic
Appendix D: Subsequent Compact
Considerations
MCC reporting and data in the
following chart are used to assess
compact performance of MCC partners
nearing the end of compact
implementation (i.e., within 18-months
of compact end date). Some reporting
used for assessment may contain
sensitive information and adversely
affect implementation or MCC-partner
country relations. This information is
for MCC’s internal use and is not made
public. However, key implementation
information is summarized in compact
status and results reports that are
published quarterly on MCC’s Web site
under MCC country programs
(www.mcc.gov/pages/countries) or
monitoring and evaluation (https://
www.mcc.gov/pages/results/m-and-e)
Web pages.
Published documents
• Quarterly implementation reporting
• Quarterly results reporting
• Survey of MCC staff
• Quarterly results published as ‘‘Table of
Key Performance Indicators’’ (available by
country): https://go.usa.gov/jMcC.
• Survey questions to be posted: https://
1.usa.gov/PE0xCX.
• Indicator tracking tables
• Quarterly financial reporting
• Quarterly implementation reporting
• Monitoring and Evaluation Plans (available
by country): https://go.usa.gov/jMcC.
• Quarterly Status Reports (available by
country): https://1.usa.gov/NfEbcI.
• Quarterly results reporting
• Survey of MCC staff
• Impact evaluations
• Quarterly results published as ‘‘Table of
Key Performance Indicators’’ (available by
country): https://1.usa.gov/QoduNl.
• Survey questions to be posted: https://
1.usa.gov/PE0xCX.
• Audits (GAO and OIG)
• Quarterly implementation reporting
• Survey of MCC staff
• Published OIG and GAO Audits
• Survey questions to be posted: https://
1.usa.gov/PE0xCX.
• Quarterly implementation reporting
• Quarterly results reporting
• Survey of MCC staff
COUNRY PARTNERSHIP
Political Will
• Status of major conditions precedent
• Program oversight/implementation
Æ project restructures
Æ partner response to MCA capacity issues
• Political independence of MCA
Management Capacity
• Project management capacity
• Project performance
• Level of MCC intervention/oversight
• Relative level of resources required
PROGRAM RESULTS
Financial Results
• Commitments—including contributions to
compact funding
• Disbursements
Project Results
• Output, outcome, objective targets
• MCA commitment to ‘focus on results’
• MCA cooperation on impact evaluation
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Rates, Public Expenditure on Health,
and Child Health); and
(C) promote the protection of
biodiversity and the transparent and
sustainable management and use of
natural resources (Natural Resource
Protection).
MCC Reporting/data source
• Percent complete for process/outputs
• Relevant outcome data
• Details behind target delays
Target Achievements
ADHERENCE TO STANDARDS
• Procurement
• Environmental and social
• Fraud and corruption
• Program closure
• Monitoring and evaluation
• All other legal provisions
COUNTRY SPECIFIC
Sustainability
• Implementation entity
• MCC investments
• Quarterly results published as ‘‘Table of
Key Performance Indicators’’ (available by
country): https://1.usa.gov/QoduNl.
• Survey questions to be posted: https://
1.usa.gov/PE0xCX.
Role of private sector or other donors
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Sep 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
58313
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\28SEN1.SGM
28SEN1
58314
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 187 / Monday, September 28, 2015 / Notices
Topic
•
•
•
•
MCC Reporting/data source
Other relevant investors/investments
Other donors/programming
Status of related reforms
Trajectory of private sector involvement
going forward
[FR Doc. 2015–24490 Filed 9–25–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211–03–P
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
ADMINISTRATION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission to OMB for
Revision of a Currently Approved
Information Collection, Credit Union
Service Organizations; Comment
Request
National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA).
ACTION: Request for comment.
AGENCY:
The NCUA intends to submit
the following information collection to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and clearance under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection is published
to obtain comments from the public.
NCUA previously amended its credit
union service organization (CUSO)
regulation to increase transparency and
address certain safety and soundness
concerns. The final rule extends certain
requirements of the CUSO regulation to
federally insured, state-chartered credit
unions and imposes new requirements
on federally insured credit unions
(FICUs). Under the amended rule, FICUs
with an investment in, or loan to, a
CUSO must obtain a written agreement
with the CUSO addressing accounting,
financial statements, audits, reporting,
and legal opinions. The rule limits the
ability of a ‘‘less than adequately
capitalized’’ FICU to recapitalize an
insolvent CUSO. All CUSOs are
required to annually provide basic
profile information to NCUA and the
appropriate state supervisory authority
(SSA). CUSOs engaging in certain
complex or high-risk activities are also
required to report more detailed
information, including audited financial
statements and customer information.
DATES: Comments will be accepted until
October 28, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are
invited to submit written comments to
the NCUA Contact and the OMB
Reviewer listed below:
NCUA Contact: Joy Lee, National Credit
Union Administration, 1775 Duke
SUMMARY:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Published documents
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Sep 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314–
3428, Fax No. 703–837–2861, Email:
OCIOPRA@ncua.gov.
OMB Reviewer: Office of Management
and Budget, ATTN: Desk Officer for
the National Credit Union
Administration, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Washington,
DC 20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information, a
copy of the information collection
request, or a copy of submitted
comments should be directed to:
NCUA Contact: Joy Lee, National Credit
Union Administration, 1775 Duke
Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314–
3428, Fax No. 703–837–2861, Email:
OCIOPRA@ncua.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract and Request for Comments
NCUA is revising the currently
approved collection of information,
OMB Control Number, 3133–0149, to
reflect amendments to 12 CFR part 712.
Part 712 implements authority in the
Federal Credit Union Act 1 relating to
FICU lending or investment activity
with a CUSO. The rule addresses
NCUA’s safety and soundness concerns
for activities conducted by CUSOs and
imposes certain recordkeeping
obligations on FICUs that have
investment or lending relationships
with, or conduct operations through,
CUSOs. Certain reporting obligations are
imposed on natural person credit union
CUSOs and corporate CUSOs as a result
of the rule.
Specifically, under the amended rule,
FICUs with an investment in, or loan to,
a CUSO must obtain a written
agreement with the CUSO (or revise any
current agreement the FICU has with a
CUSO) to provide that the CUSO will:
(1) Account for all its transactions in
accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP); (2)
prepare quarterly financial statements
and obtain an annual financial
statement audit of its financial
statements by a licensed certified public
accountant; (3) provide complete access
to the books and records of the CUSO;
and (4) annually report directly to
NCUA and the appropriate state
1 12 U.S.C. 1756, 1757(5)(D), 1757(7)(I), 1766,
1782, 1785, and 1786.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
supervisory authority (SSA) certain
financial and other information
prescribed by the rule. 12 CFR 712.3(d).
The report (CUSO Registry) must
contain basic registration information,
including the CUSO’s name and
address, point of contact, services
offered, the names and charter numbers
of credit unions investing in, lending to,
or receiving services from the CUSO,
and investor and subsidiary
information. In addition, for any CUSO
engaged in complex or high-risk
activities, as defined in the rule, the
report must contain additional,
enhanced, more detailed information,
including audited financial statements
and more specific customer information.
12 CFR 712.3(d)(4). NCUA plans to
implement secure online technology for
the CUSOs’ direct submission of
financial and other reports.
Development of the CUSO Registry is
underway, which will provide fully
electronic reporting by CUSOs.
A FICU and a CUSO must be operated
in a manner that demonstrates to the
public the separate corporate existence
of the FICU and the CUSO. Section
712.4(b) requires that prior to investing
in a CUSO, the FICU must obtain a
written legal opinion confirming the
CUSO is established in a legally
sufficient way to limit the FICU’s
exposure to loss of its loans or
investments in the CUSO. 12 CFR
712.4(b).
The amendments also require that a
FICU that is, or as a result of
recapitalizing an insolvent CUSO, will
become less than adequately capitalized
must, under certain circumstances,
obtain NCUA (or SSA, if applicable)
approval to recapitalize a CUSO that has
become insolvent. 12 CFR 712.2(d).
NCUA previously requested
comments in response to a notice on
‘‘Information Collection Activities:
Submission to OMB for Revision of a
Currently Approved Information
Collection, Credit Union Service
Organizations’’ due September 4, 2015.
(80 FR 38475, July 6, 2015). NCUA
received a few comments in response to
this sixty-day notice. Staff carefully
reviewed and considered these
comments.
In particular, with regard to concern
about confidentiality, the rule addresses
documents, such as an agreement
E:\FR\FM\28SEN1.SGM
28SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 187 (Monday, September 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58307-58314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24490]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION
[MCC FR 15-03]
Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the
Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account
Assistance in Fiscal Year 2016
AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: 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'').
Dated: September 22, 2015.
Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong,
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 in
Fiscal Year 2016
Summary
In accordance with section 608(b)(2) of the Millennium Challenge
Act of 2003 (the ``Act'', 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)(1)), the Millennium
Challenge Corporation (MCC) is submitting the following report. This
report identifies the criteria and methodology that the Millennium
Challenge Corporation (MCC) intends to use to determine which candidate
countries may be eligible to be considered for assistance under the Act
for FY 2016.
Under section 608 (c)(1) of the Act, MCC will, for a thirty-day
period following publication, accept and consider public comment for
purposes of determining eligible countries under section 607 of the Act
(22 U.S.C. 7706).
[[Page 58308]]
Criteria and Methodology for FY 2016
This document explains how the Board of Directors (Board) of the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) will identify, evaluate, and
determine eligibility of countries for Millennium Challenge Account
(MCA) assistance for fiscal year (FY) 2016. The statutory basis for
this report is set forth in Appendix A. Specifically, this document
discusses:
I. Which Countries MCC Will Evaluate
II. How the Board Evaluates These Countries
A. Overall
B. For Selection for First Compact Eligibility
C. For Selection for Second/Subsequent Compact Eligibility
D. For Selection for the Threshold Program
E. A Note on Potential Regional Investments
I. Which countries are evaluated?
As discussed in the August 2015 Report on Countries that are
Candidates for Millennium Challenge Account Eligibility for Fiscal Year
2016 and Countries that Would be Candidates but for Legal Prohibitions
(the ``Candidate Country Report''), MCC evaluates all low-income
countries (LICs) and lower-middle income countries (LMICs) countries as
follows:
For scorecard evaluation purposes for FY 2016, MCC defines
LICs as those countries between $0 and $1985 GNI per capita, and LMICs
as those countries between $1986 and $4125 GNI per capita.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This corresponds to LIC and LMIC definitions using the
historic International Development Association (IDA) thresholds
published by the World Bank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For funding purposes for FY 2016, MCC defines the poorest
75 countries as LICs, and the remaining countries up to the upper-
middle income (UMIC) threshold of $4125 as LMICs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ By law, no more than 25 percent of all compact funds for a
given fiscal year may be provided to LMIC countries (using this
``funding'' definition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Appendix B, lists of all LICS, LMICS and statutorily
prohibited countries for evaluation purposes are provided. The list
using the ``funding'' definition was outlined in the FY 2016 Candidate
Country Report and describes how funding categories work.
II. How does the Board evaluate these countries?
A. Overall Evaluation
The Board looks at three legislatively-mandated factors in its
evaluation of any candidate country for compact eligibility: (1) Policy
performance; (2) the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate
economic growth; and (3) the availability of MCC funds.
1. Policy Performance
Because of the importance of needing to evaluate a country's policy
performance--and needing to do so in a comparable, cross-country way--
the Board relies to the maximum extent possible upon the best-available
objective and quantifiable indicators of policy performance. These
indicators act as proxies of the country's commitment to good
governance, as laid out in MCC's founding legislation. Comprised of 20
third-party indicators in the categories of ``encouraging economic
freedom,'' ``investing in people,'' and ``ruling justly,'' MCC
``scorecards'' are created for all LICs and LMICs. To ``pass'' the
indicators on the scorecard, the country must perform above the median
among its income group (as defined above), except in the cases of
inflation, political rights, civil liberties, and immunization rates
(LMICs only), where threshold scores have been established. In
particular, the Board considers whether the country:
Passed at least 10 of the 20 indicators, with at least one
in each category,
Passed the ``Control of Corruption'' indicator, and
Passed either the ``Political Rights'' or ``Civil
Liberties'' indicator.
While satisfaction of all three aspects means a country is termed
to have ``passed'' the scorecard, the Board also considers whether the
country performed ``substantially worse'' in any one policy category
than it does on the scorecard overall. Appendix C describes all 20
indicators, their definitions, what is required to ``pass,'' their
source, and their relationship to the legislative criteria.
The 20 policy performance indicators are the predominant basis for
determining which countries will be eligible for MCC assistance, and
the Board expects a country to be passing its scorecard at the point
the Board decides to select the country for either a first or second/
subsequent compact. However, the Board also recognizes that even the
best-available data has inherent challenges. For example, data gaps,
real-time events versus data lags, the absence of narratives and
nuanced detail, and other similar weaknesses affect each of these
indicators. In such instances, the Board uses its judgment to interpret
policy performance as measured by the scorecards. The Board may also
consult other sources of information to further enhance its
understanding of a given country's policy performance beyond the issues
on the scorecard, which is especially useful given the unique
perspective of each Board member (e.g., specific policy issues related
to trade, civil society, other U.S. aid programs, financial sector
performance, and security/foreign policy issues). The Board uses its
judgment on how best to weigh such information in assessing overall
policy performance.
2. The Opportunity To Reduce Poverty and Generate Economic Growth
The Board also consults other sources of qualitative and
quantitative information to have a more detailed view of the
opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in a
country.
While the Board considers a range of other information sources
depending on the country, specific areas of attention typically include
better understanding the issues on, trends in, and trajectory of:
The control of corruption and rule of law;
The state of democratic and human rights (especially of
vulnerable groups \3\);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For example, women; children; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender individuals; people with disabilities; and workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The perspective of civil society on salient governance
issues;
The potential for the private sector (both local and
foreign) to lead investment and growth;
The levels of poverty within a country; and
The country's institutional capacity.
Where applicable, the Board also considers MCC's own experience and
ability to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in a given
country--such as considering MCC's core skills versus the country's
needs, capacity within MCC to work with a country, and the likelihood
that MCC is seen by the country as a credible partner.
This information provides greater clarity on the likelihood that
MCC investments will have an appreciable impact on reducing poverty and
generating economic growth in a given country. The Board has used such
information both to not select countries that are otherwise passing
their scorecards, as well as to better understand when a country's
performance on a particular indicator may not be up to date or is about
to change. More details on this subject (sometimes referred to as
``supplemental information'') can be found on MCC's Web site at https://www.mcc.gov/pages/docs/doc/pub-guide-to-supplemental-information-fy15.
3. The Availability of MCC Funds
The final factor that the Board must consider when evaluating
countries is
[[Page 58309]]
the funding available. The agency's allocation of its budget is
constrained, and often specifically limited, by provisions in the
authorizing legislation and appropriations acts. MCC has a continuous
pipeline of countries in compact development, compact implementation,
and compact closeout, as well as threshold programs. Consequently, the
Board factors in the overall portfolio picture when making its
selection decisions given the funding available for each of the
agency's planned or existing programs.
The following sub-sections describe how each of these three
legislatively-mandated factors are applied with regard to the selection
situations the Board encounters each December: Selection of countries
for first compact eligibility, selection of countries for second/
subsequent compact eligibility, and selection of countries for the
threshold program. Thereafter, a note is included on consideration of
countries for potential regional investments.
B. Evaluation for Selection of Countries for First Compact Eligibility
When selecting countries for compact eligibility, the Board looks
at all three legislatively-mandated aspects described in the previous
section: (1) Policy performance, first and foremost as measured by the
scorecards and bolstered through additional information (as described
in the previous section); (2) the opportunity to reduce poverty and
generate economic growth, examined through the use of other supporting
information (as described in the previous section); and (3) the funding
available.
At a minimum, the Board looks to see that the country passes its
scorecard. It also examines supporting evidence that the country's
commitment to good governance is on a sound footing and performance is
on a positive trajectory, and that MCC has funding to support a
meaningful compact with that country. Where applicable, previous
threshold program information is also considered. The Board then weighs
the information described above across each of the three dimensions.
The approach described above is then applied in any additional
years of selection of a country to continue to develop a first compact,
with the added benefit of having cumulative scorecards, cumulative
records of policy performance, and other accumulated supporting
information to determine the overall pattern of performance over the
emerging multi-year trajectory.
C. Evaluation for Selection of Countries for Second/Subsequent Compact
Eligibility
Section 609(k) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended,
specifically authorizes MCC to enter into ``one or more subsequent
Compacts.'' MCC does not consider subsequent compact eligibility,
however, before countries have completed their compact, or are within
18 months of completion, (e.g., a second compact if they have completed
or are within 18 months of completing their first compact).
Selection for subsequent compacts is not automatic and is intended
only for countries that (1) exhibit successful performance on their
previous compact; (2) exhibit improved scorecard policy performance
during the partnership; and (3) exhibit a continued commitment to
further their sector reform efforts in any subsequent partnership. As a
result, the Board has an even higher standard when selecting countries
for subsequent compacts.
1. Successful Implementation of the Previous Compact
To evaluate the degree of success of the previous compact, the
Board looks to see if there is a clear evidence base of success within
the budget and time limits of the compact, in particular by looking at
three aspects:
The degree to which there is evidence of strong political
will and management capacity: Is the partnership characterized by the
country ensuring that both policy reforms and the compact program
itself are being implemented to the best ability that the country can
deliver;
The degree to which the country has exhibited commitment
and capacity to achieve program results: Are the financial and project
results being achieved; to what degree is the country committing its
own resources to ensure the compact is a success; to what extent is the
private sector engaged (if relevant); and other compact-specific
issues; and
The degree to which the country has implemented the
compact in accordance with MCC's core policies and standards: That is,
is the country adhering to MCC's policies and procedures, including in
critical areas such as remediating unresolved fraud and corruption and
abuse or misuse of funds issues; procurement; and monitoring and
evaluation.
Details on the specific types of information examined (and sources
used) in each of the three areas are provided in Appendix D. Overall,
the Board is looking for evidence that the previous compact will be
completed or has been completed successfully, on time and on budget,
and that there is a commitment to continued, robust reform going
forward.
2. Improved Scorecard Policy Performance
Beyond successful implementation of the previous compact, the Board
expects the country to have improved its overall scorecard policy
performance during the partnership, and to pass the scorecard in the
year of selection for the subsequent compact. The Board focuses on:
The overall scorecard pass/fail rate over time, what this
suggests about underlying policy performance, as well as an examination
of the underlying reasons;
The progress over time on policy areas measured by both
hard-hurdle indicators--Control of Corruption, and Democratic Rights--
including an examination of the underlying reasons; and
Other indicator trajectories as deemed relevant by the
Board.
In all cases, while the Board expects the country to be passing its
scorecard, other sources of information are examined to understand the
nuance and reasons behind scorecard or indicator performance over time,
including any real-time updates, methodological changes within the
indicators themselves, shifts in the relevant candidate pool, or
alternative policy performance perspectives (such as gleaned through
consultations with civil society and related stakeholders). Other
sources of information are also consulted to look at policy performance
over time in areas not covered by the scorecard, but that are deemed
important by the Board (such as trade, foreign policy concerns, etc.).
3. A Commitment to Further Sector Reform
The Board expects that subsequent compacts will endeavor to tackle
deeper policy reforms necessary to unlock an identified constraint to
growth. Consequently, the Board considers its own experience during the
previous compact in considering how committed the country is to
reducing poverty and increasing economic growth, and therefore tries to
gauge the country's commitment for further sector reform should it be
selected for a subsequent compact. This includes:
Assessing the country's delivery of policy reform during
the previous compact (as described above);
Assessing expectations of the country's ability and
willingness to
[[Page 58310]]
continue embarking on sector policy reform in a subsequent compact;
Examining both other sources of information that describe
the nature of the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate growth (as
outlined in A.2 above), and the relative success of the previous
compact overall, as already discussed; and
Finally, considering how well funding can be leveraged for
impact, given its experience in the previous compact.
Through this overall approach to subsequent compact selection, the
Board applies the three legislatively mandated evaluation criteria
(policy performance, the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate
economic growth, and the funding available) in a way that rests
critically on deeply assessing the previous partnership: From a compact
success standpoint, a commitment to improved scorecard policy
performance standpoint, and a commitment to continued sector policy
reform standpoint. The Board then weighs all of the information
described above in making its decision.
The approach described above is then applied in any additional
years of selection necessary as the country continues to develop the
subsequent compact, with the added benefit of having even further
detail on previous compact implementation, cumulative scorecards,
records of policy performance, and other accumulated supporting
information to determine the overall pattern of performance over the
resulting multi-year trajectory.
D. Evaluation for Eligibility for Threshold Programs
The Board may also select countries to participate in the Threshold
Program. The Threshold Program provides assistance to candidate
countries that exhibit a significant commitment to meeting the
eligibility criteria described in the previous sub-sections, but fail
to meet such requirements. Specifically, in examining the policy
performance, the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic
growth, and the funding available, the Board will consider whether a
country potentially eligible for threshold program assistance appears
to be on a trajectory to becoming a viable contender for compact
eligibility in the medium term.
E. A Note on Potential Regional Investments
FY 2016 marks the first year that the Board may consider selecting
countries where potential regional investments (i.e., cross-border
investments) may be developed.
With respect to regional investments, the fundamental criteria and
process for selection will remain unchanged: Countries will continue to
be evaluated and selected individually, as described in sections A, B,
and C above. However, for countries where regional investments might be
contemplated, the Board will also examine additional supplemental
information looking at the policy environment from a regional
dimension.
Specifically, the Board will examine additional data and
information related to:
The current state of the country's political and economic
integration with its region and neighbors;
Impediments to further integration with its region and
neighbors; and
The potential gains from investing at a regional level,
including illustrative potential sector opportunities.
The Board will weigh this additional regional information in tandem
with the other supplemental factors described earlier in sections A, B,
and C. The Board will then decide whether or not it will direct MCC to
explore some form of a regional investment with the country.
Appendix A: Statutory Basis for This Report
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).
Section 605 of the Act authorizes the provision of assistance to
countries that enter into a Millennium Challenge Compact with the
United States to support policies and programs that advance the
progress of such countries in achieving lasting economic growth and
poverty reduction. The Act requires MCC to take a number of steps in
selecting countries for compact assistance for FY 2016 based on the
countries' demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance,
economic freedom, and investing in their people, MCC's opportunity to
reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country, and the
availability of funds. These steps include the submission of reports to
the congressional committees specified in the Act and publication of
information in the Federal Register that identify:
1. The countries that are ``candidate countries'' for MCA
assistance for FY 2016 based on per capita income levels and
eligibility to receive assistance under U.S. law. (section 608(a) of
the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(a));
2. The criteria and methodology that MCC's Board of Directors
(Board) will use to measure and evaluate 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 ``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 ``eligible
countries'' for FY 2016, with justification for eligibility
determination and selection for compact negotiation, including those
eligible countries with which MCC will seek to enter into compacts
(section 608(d) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(d)).
This report reflects the satisfaction of item #2 above.
Appendix B: Lists of all LICs, LMICs, and Statutorily Prohibited
Countries for Evaluation Purposes Income Classification for Scorecards
Since MCC was created, it has relied on the World Bank's gross
national income (GNI) per capita income data (Atlas method) and the
historical ceiling for eligibility as set by the World Bank's
International Development Association (IDA) to divide countries into
two income categories for purposes of creating scorecards: LICs and
LMICs. These categories are used to account for the income bias that
occurs when countries with more per capita resources perform better
than countries with fewer. Using the historical IDA eligibility ceiling
for the scorecards ensures that the poorest countries compete with
their income level peers and are not compared against countries with
more resources to mobilize.
MCC will continue to use the traditional income categories for
eligibility to categorize countries in two groups for purposes of FY
2016 scorecard comparisons:
LICs are countries with GNI per capita below IDA's
historical ceiling for eligibility ($1,985 for FY 2016); and
LMICs are countries with GNI per capita above IDA's
historical ceiling for eligibility but below the World Bank's upper
middle income country threshold ($1,986--$4,125 for FY 2016).
The list of countries categorized as LICs and LMICs for the purpose
of FY 2016 scorecard assessments can be found below.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In December 2011, a statutory change requested by MCC
altered the way MCC must group countries for the purposes of
applying MCC's 25 percent LMIC funding cap. This change, designed to
bring stability to the funding stream, affects how MCC funds
countries selected for compacts and does not affect the way
scorecards are created. For determining whether a country can be
funded as an LMIC or LIC:
The poorest 75 countries are now considered LICs for
the purposes of MCC funding. They are not limited by the 25 percent
funding cap on LMICs.
Countries with a GNI per capita above the poorest 75
but below the World Bank's upper middle income country threshold
($4,125 for FY 2015) are considered LMICs for the purposes of MCC
funding. By law, no more than 25 percent of all compact funds for a
given fiscal year can be provided to these countries.
The FY 2016 Candidate Country Report lists LICs and LMICs based
on this new definition and outlines which countries are subject to
the 25 percent funding cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58311]]
Low Income Countries (FY 2016 Scorecard)
1. Afghanistan
2. Bangladesh
3. Benin
4. Burkina Faso
5. Burma
6. Burundi
7. Cambodia
8. Cameroon
9. Central African Republic
10. Chad
11. Comoros
12. Congo, the Democratic Republic of
13. Cote d'Ivoire
14. Djibouti
15. Eritrea
16. Ethiopia
17. Gambia
18. Ghana
19. Guinea
20. Guinea-Bissau
21. Haiti
22. India
23. Kenya
24. Korea, Democratic People's Republic of
25. Kyrgyz Republic
26. Laos
27. Lesotho
28. Liberia
29. Madagascar
30. Malawi
31. Mali
32. Mauritania
33. Mozambique
34. Nepal
35. Nicaragua
36. Niger
37. Pakistan
38. Rwanda
39. Sao Tome and Principe
40. Senegal
41. Sierra Leone
42. Solomon Islands
43. Somalia
44. South Sudan
45. Sudan
46. Tajikistan
47. Tanzania
48. Togo
49. Uganda
50. Vietnam
51. Yemen
52. Zambia
53. Zimbabwe
Lower Middle Income Countries (FY 2016 Scorecard)
1. Armenia
2. Bhutan
3. Bolivia
4. Cabo Verde
5. Congo, Republic of
6. Egypt
7. El Salvador
8. Georgia
9. Guatemala
10. Guyana
11. Honduras
12. Indonesia
13. Kiribati
14. Kosovo
15. Micronesia
16. Moldova
17. Morocco
18. Nigeria
19. Papua New Guinea
20. Philippines
21. Samoa
22. Sri Lanka
23. Swaziland
24. Syria
25. Timor-Leste
26. Ukraine
27. Uzbekistan
28. Vanuatu
Statutorily Prohibited Countries for FY16 \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This list is current as of July 21, 2015. Between such date
and the December 2015 selection Board meeting, other countries may
also be the subject of future statutory restrictions or
determinations, or changed country circumstances, that affect their
legal eligibility for assistance under part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act by reason of application of the Foreign Assistance
Act or any other provision of law for FY 2016. Even though these
countries are prohibited from receiving assistance, scorecards are
still created for them to ensure all countries are included in an
income group in order to determine the global medians/scores for
that income group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bolivia
2. Burma
3. Eritrea
4. North Korea
5. South Sudan
6. Sudan
7. Syria
8. Zimbabwe
Appendix C: Indicator Definitions
The following indicators will be used to measure candidate
countries' demonstrated commitment to the criteria found 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 (i) their
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.\6\ Listed below is a brief summary of
the indicators (a detailed rationale for the adoption of these
indicators can be found in the Public Guide to the Indicators on MCC's
public Web site at www.mcc.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Special note on Kosovo: Since UN agencies do not currently
publish data for Kosovo due to non-recognition status, MCC is unable
to source data directly from the UN for the six indicators that are
constructed in all or in part from this data: Land Rights and
Access, Health Expenditures, Primary Education Expenditures,
Immunization Rates, Girls' Secondary Education Enrollment Rate, and
Child Health. As result, MCC publishes data from UNKT (the UN Kosovo
Team) in cases where UNKT uses comparable methodologies to their UN
sister organizations. See https://www.unkt.org/ for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruling Justly
1. 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. Pass:
Score must be above the minimum score of 17 out of 40. Source: Freedom
House
2. 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. Pass: Score must be above the minimum score of 25 out of 60.
Source: Freedom House
3. Freedom of Information: Measures the legal and practical steps
taken by a government to enable or allow information to move freely
through society; this includes measures of press freedom, national
freedom of information laws, and the extent to which a county is
filtering internet content or tools. Pass: Score must be above the
median score for the income group. Source: Freedom House/Centre for Law
and Democracy/Access Info Europe
4. 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. Pass: Score must be above the
[[Page 58312]]
median score for the income group. Source: Worldwide Governance
Indicators (World Bank/Brookings)
5. 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. Pass: Score must be
above the median score for the income group. Source: Worldwide
Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings)
6. 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. Pass: Score must be
above the median score for the income group. Source: Worldwide
Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings)
Encouraging Economic Freedom
1. Fiscal Policy: The overall budget balance divided by gross
domestic product (GDP), averaged over a three-year period. The data for
this measure comes 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. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the
income group. Source: International Monetary Fund Country Reports,
National Governments, and the International Monetary Fund's World
Economic Outlook Database
2. Inflation: The most recent average annual change in consumer
prices. Pass: Score must be 15 percent or less. Source: The
International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Database
3. 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. Pass: Score must be above the median
score for the income group. Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators
(World Bank/Brookings)
4. Trade Policy: A measure of a country's openness to international
trade based on weighted average tariff rates and non-tariff barriers to
trade. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group.
Source: The Heritage Foundation
5. Gender in the Economy: An index that measures the extent to
which laws provide men and women equal capacity to generate income or
participate in the economy, including the capacity to access
institutions, get a job, register a business, sign a contract, open a
bank account, choose where to live, and to travel freely. Pass: Score
must be above the median score for the income group. Source:
International Finance Corporation
6. 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.
Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group.
Source: The International Fund for Agricultural Development and the
International Finance Corporation
7. Access to Credit: An index that rates countries on rules and
practices affecting the coverage, scope, and accessibility of credit
information available through either a public credit registry or a
private credit bureau; as well as legal rights in collateral laws and
bankruptcy laws. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the
income group. Source: International Finance Corporation
8. 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. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the
income group. Source: International Finance Corporation
Investing in People
1. Public Expenditure on Health: Total expenditures on health by
government at all levels divided by GDP. Pass: Score must be above the
median score for the income group. Source: The World Health
Organization
2. Total Public Expenditure on Primary Education: Total
expenditures on primary education by government at all levels divided
by GDP. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income
group. Source: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization and National Governments
3. Natural Resource Protection: Assesses whether countries are
protecting up to 17 percent of all their biomes (e.g., deserts,
tropical rainforests, grasslands, savannas and tundra). Pass: Score
must be above the median score for the income group. Source: The Center
for International Earth Science Information Network and the Yale Center
for Environmental Law and Policy
4. Immunization Rates: The average of DPT3 and measles immunization
coverage rates for the most recent year available. Pass: Score must be
above the median score for LICs, and 90 percent or higher for LMICs.
Source: The World Health Organization and the United Nations Children's
Fund
5. Girls Education:
a. 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). LICs are assessed on this indicator. Pass:
Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source:
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
b. Girls Secondary Enrollment Education: The number of female
pupils enrolled in lower secondary school, regardless of age, expressed
as a percentage of the population of females in the theoretical age
group for lower secondary education. LMICs will be assessed on this
indicator instead of Girls Primary Completion Rates. Pass: Score must
be above the median score for the income group. Source: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
6. Child Health: An index made up of three indicators: (i) Access
to improved water, (ii) access to improved sanitation, and (iii) child
(ages 1-4) mortality. Pass: Score must be above the median score for
the income group. Source: The Center for International Earth Science
Information Network and the Yale Center for Environmental Law and
Policy
Relationship to Legislative Criteria
Within each policy category, the Act sets out a number of specific
selection criteria. A set of objective and quantifiable policy
indicators is used to inform eligibility decisions for MCA assistance
and to measure the relative performance by candidate countries against
these criteria. The Board's approach to determining eligibility ensures
that performance against each of these criteria is assessed by at least
one of the objective indicators. Most are addressed by multiple
indicators. The specific indicators appear in parentheses next to the
corresponding criterion set out in the Act.
[[Page 58313]]
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, Rule of Law, and Gender in the
Economy);
(B) respect human and civil rights, including the rights of people
with disabilities (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, and Freedom of
Information);
(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, Freedom of Information, Control of
Corruption, Rule of Law, and Government Effectiveness); and
(E) combat corruption (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Rule of
Law, Freedom of Information, 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, Access to Credit, Gender in the
Economy, and Regulatory Quality);
(C) strengthen market forces in the economy (Fiscal Policy,
Inflation, Trade Policy, Business Start-Up, Land Rights and Access,
Access to Credit, and Regulatory Quality); and
(D respect worker rights, including the right to form labor unions
(Civil Liberties and Gender in the Economy); and
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
Completion Rate, Girls' Secondary Education Enrollment Rate, and Total
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 Child Health); and
(C) promote the protection of biodiversity and the transparent and
sustainable management and use of natural resources (Natural Resource
Protection).
Appendix D: Subsequent Compact Considerations
MCC reporting and data in the following chart are used to assess
compact performance of MCC partners nearing the end of compact
implementation (i.e., within 18-months of compact end date). Some
reporting used for assessment may contain sensitive information and
adversely affect implementation or MCC-partner country relations. This
information is for MCC's internal use and is not made public. However,
key implementation information is summarized in compact status and
results reports that are published quarterly on MCC's Web site under
MCC country programs (www.mcc.gov/pages/countries) or monitoring and
evaluation (https://www.mcc.gov/pages/results/m-and-e) Web pages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic MCC Reporting/data source Published documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNRY PARTNERSHIP Quarterly implementation Quarterly results published
Political Will reporting as ``Table of Key Performance
Status of major conditions Quarterly results reporting Indicators'' (available by
precedent Survey of MCC staff country): https://go.usa.gov/jMcC.
Program oversight/ Survey questions to be
implementation posted: https://1.usa.gov/PE0xCX.
[cir] project restructures
[cir] partner response to MCA
capacity issues
Political independence of
MCA
Management Capacity .................................... ....................................
Project management capacity .................................... ....................................
Project performance .................................... ....................................
Level of MCC intervention/ .................................... ....................................
oversight
Relative level of resources .................................... ....................................
required
PROGRAM RESULTS Indicator tracking tables Monitoring and Evaluation
Financial Results Quarterly financial Plans (available by country): http:/
Commitments--including reporting /go.usa.gov/jMcC.
contributions to compact funding Quarterly implementation Quarterly Status Reports
Disbursements reporting (available by country): https://1.usa.gov/NfEbcI.
Project Results Quarterly results reporting Quarterly results published
Output, outcome, objective Survey of MCC staff as ``Table of Key Performance
targets Impact evaluations Indicators'' (available by
MCA commitment to `focus on country): https://1.usa.gov/QoduNl.
results' Survey questions to be
MCA cooperation on impact posted: https://1.usa.gov/PE0xCX.
evaluation
Percent complete for .................................... ....................................
process/outputs
Relevant outcome data .................................... ....................................
Details behind target .................................... ....................................
delays
Target Achievements .................................... ....................................
ADHERENCE TO STANDARDS Audits (GAO and OIG) Published OIG and GAO
Procurement Quarterly implementation Audits
Environmental and social reporting Survey questions to be
Fraud and corruption Survey of MCC staff posted: https://1.usa.gov/PE0xCX.
Program closure
Monitoring and evaluation .................................... ....................................
All other legal provisions .................................... ....................................
COUNTRY SPECIFIC Quarterly implementation Quarterly results published
Sustainability reporting as ``Table of Key Performance
Implementation entity Quarterly results reporting Indicators'' (available by
MCC investments Survey of MCC staff country): https://1.usa.gov/QoduNl.
Survey questions to be
posted: https://1.usa.gov/PE0xCX.
Role of private sector or other .................................... ....................................
donors
[[Page 58314]]
Other relevant investors/ .................................... ....................................
investments
Other donors/programming .................................... ....................................
Status of related reforms .................................... ....................................
Trajectory of private .................................... ....................................
sector involvement going forward
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2015-24490 Filed 9-25-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211-03-P
