Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2016, 81868-81870 [2015-32353]
Download as PDF
81868
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2015 / Notices
numbered subject for which a response
is submitted.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
General Effectiveness of Safe Harbors
1. Are the section 512 safe harbors
working as Congress intended?
2. Have courts properly construed the
entities and activities covered by the
section 512 safe harbors?
3. How have section 512’s limitations
on liability for online service providers
impacted the growth and development
of online services?
4. How have section 512’s limitations
on liability for online service providers
impacted the protection and value of
copyrighted works, including licensing
markets for such works?
5. Do the section 512 safe harbors
strike the correct balance between
copyright owners and online service
providers?
Notice-and-Takedown Process
6. How effective is section 512’s
notice-and-takedown process for
addressing online infringement?
7. How efficient or burdensome is
section 512’s notice-and-takedown
process for addressing online
infringement? Is it a workable solution
over the long run?
8. In what ways does the process work
differently for individuals, small-scale
entities, and/or large-scale entities that
are sending and/or receiving takedown
notices?
9. Please address the role of both
‘‘human’’ and automated notice-andtakedown processes under section 512,
including their respective feasibility,
benefits, and limitations.
10. Does the notice-and-takedown
process sufficiently address the
reappearance of infringing material
previously removed by a service
provider in response to a notice? If not,
what should be done to address this
concern?
11. Are there technologies or
processes that would improve the
efficiency and/or effectiveness of the
notice-and-takedown process?
12. Does the notice-and-takedown
process sufficiently protect against
fraudulent, abusive or unfounded
notices? If not, what should be done to
address this concern?
13. Has section 512(d), which
addresses ‘‘information location tools,’’
been a useful mechanism to address
infringement that occurs as a result of a
service provider’s referring or linking to
infringing content? If not, what should
be done to address this concern?
14. Have courts properly interpreted
the meaning of ‘‘representative list’’
under section 512(c)(3)(A)(ii)? If not,
what should be done to address this
concern?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Dec 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
15. Please describe, and assess the
effectiveness or ineffectiveness of,
voluntary measures and best practices—
including financial measures, content
‘‘filtering’’ and takedown procedures—
that have been undertaken by interested
parties to supplement or improve the
efficacy of section 512’s notice-andtakedown process.
Counter Notifications
16. How effective is the counternotification process for addressing false
and mistaken assertions of
infringement?
17. How efficient or burdensome is
the counter-notification process for
users and service providers? Is it a
workable solution over the long run?
18. In what ways does the process
work differently for individuals, smallscale entities, and/or large-scale entities
that are sending and/or receiving
counter notifications?
Legal Standards
19. Assess courts’ interpretations of
the ‘‘actual’’ and ‘‘red flag’’ knowledge
standards under the section 512 safe
harbors, including the role of ‘‘willful
blindness’’ and section 512(m)(1)
(limiting the duty of a service provider
to monitor for infringing activity) in
such analyses. How are judicial
interpretations impacting the
effectiveness of section 512?
20. Assess courts’ interpretations of
the ‘‘financial benefit’’ and ‘‘right and
ability to control’’ standards under the
section 512 safe harbors. How are
judicial interpretations impacting the
effectiveness of section 512?
21. Describe any other judicial
interpretations of section 512 that
impact its effectiveness, and why.
Repeat Infringers
22. Describe and address the
effectiveness of repeat infringer policies
as referenced in section 512(i)(A).
23. Is there sufficient clarity in the
law as to what constitutes a repeat
infringer policy for purposes of section
512’s safe harbors? If not, what should
be done to address this concern?
Standard Technical Measures
24. Does section 512(i) concerning
service providers’ accommodation of
‘‘standard technical measures’’
(including the definition of such
measures set forth in section 512(i)(2))
encourage or discourage the use of
technologies to address online
infringement?
25. Are there any existing or emerging
‘‘standard technical measures’’ that
could or should apply to obtain the
benefits of section 512’s safe harbors?
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Remedies
26. Is section 512(g)(2)(C), which
requires a copyright owner to bring a
federal lawsuit within ten business days
to keep allegedly infringing content
offline—and a counter-notifying party to
defend any such lawsuit—a reasonable
and effective provision? If not, how
might it be improved?
27. Is the limited injunctive relief
available under section 512(j) a
sufficient and effective remedy to
address the posting of infringing
material?
28. Are the remedies for
misrepresentation set forth in section
512(f) sufficient to deter and address
fraudulent or abusive notices and
counter notifications?
Other Issues
29. Please provide any statistical or
economic reports or studies that
demonstrate the effectiveness,
ineffectiveness, and/or impact of section
512’s safe harbors.
30. Please identify and describe any
pertinent issues not referenced above
that the Copyright Office should
consider in conducting its study.
Dated: December 28, 2015.
Maria A. Pallante,
Register of Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office.
[FR Doc. 2015–32973 Filed 12–30–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE
CORPORATION
[MCC FR 15–06]
Report on the Selection of Eligible
Countries for Fiscal Year 2016
Millennium Challenge
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This report is provided in
accordance with section 608(d)(1) of the
Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, Pub.
L. 108–199, Division D, (the ‘‘Act’’), 22
U.S.C. 7708(d)(1).
SUMMARY:
Dated: December 18, 2015.
Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong,
Vice President and General Counsel,
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Report on the Selection of Eligible
Countries for Fiscal Year 2016
Summary
This report is provided in accordance
with section 608(d)(1) of the
Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as
amended, Public Law 108–199, Division
D, (the ‘‘Act’’) (22 U.S.C. 7707(d)(1)).
The Act authorizes the provision of
Millennium Challenge Account
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2015 / Notices
(‘‘MCA’’) assistance under section 605
of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7704) to countries
that enter into compacts with the United
States to support policies and programs
that advance the progress of such
countries in achieving lasting economic
growth and poverty reduction, and are
in furtherance of the Act. The Act
requires the Millennium Challenge
Corporation (‘‘MCC’’) to determine the
countries that will be eligible to receive
MCA assistance for the fiscal year, based
on their demonstrated commitment to
just and democratic governance,
economic freedom, and investing in
their people, as well as on the
opportunity to reduce poverty and
generate economic growth in the
country. The Act also requires the
submission of reports to appropriate
congressional committees and the
publication of notices in the Federal
Register that identify, among other
things:
1. The countries that are ‘‘candidate
countries’’ for assistance for fiscal year
(‘‘FY’’) 2016 based on their per-capita
income levels and their eligibility to
receive assistance under U.S. law, and
countries that would be candidate
countries but for specified legal
prohibitions on assistance (section
608(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7707(a)));
2. The criteria and methodology that
the Board of Directors of MCC (the
‘‘Board’’) will use to measure and
evaluate the policy performance of the
‘‘candidate countries’’ consistent with
the requirements of section 607 of the
Act in order to select ‘‘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 with which of the
eligible countries the Board will seek to
enter into compacts (section 608(d) of
the Act (22 U.S.C. 7707(d))).
This is the third of the abovedescribed reports by MCC for FY 2016.
It identifies countries determined by the
Board to be eligible under section 607
of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY 2016
and countries with which the MCC will
seek to enter into compacts under
section 609 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708),
as well as the justification for such
decisions. The report also identifies
countries determined by the Board to be
eligible for MCC’s Threshold Program
under section 616 of the Act (22 U.S.C.
7715).
Eligible Countries
The Board met on December 16, 2015,
to select countries that will be eligible
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Dec 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
for assistance under section 607 of the
Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY 2016. The
Board selected the following countries
as eligible for such assistance for FY
2016: Cote d’Ivoire, Kosovo, and
Senegal. The Board also reselected the
following countries as eligible for FY
2016 compact assistance: Niger, Nepal,
and the Philippines. The Board did not
vote on the re-selection of Tanzania and
Lesotho. The Board also reaffirmed its
support for Mongolia’s continued effort
to develop its compact proposal that
will access funds appropriated to MCC
when Mongolia was a candidate
country.
Criteria
In accordance with the Act and with
the ‘‘Report on the Criteria and
Methodology for Determining the
Eligibility of Candidate Countries for
Millennium Challenge Account
Assistance in Fiscal Year 2016’’
formally submitted to Congress on
September 22, 2015, selection was based
primarily on a country’s overall
performance in three broad policy
categories: Ruling Justly, Encouraging
Economic Freedom, and Investing in
People. The Board relied, to the
maximum extent possible, upon
transparent and independent indicators
to assess countries’ policy performance
and demonstrated commitment in these
three broad policy areas. The Board
compared countries’ performance on the
indicators relative to their income-level
peers, evaluating them in comparison to
either the group of low income
countries (‘‘LIC’’) or the group of lower
middle income countries (‘‘LMIC’’).
The criteria and methodology used to
assess countries on the annual
scorecards are outlined in the ‘‘Report
on the Criteria and Methodology for
Determining the Eligibility of Candidate
Countries for Millennium Challenge
Account Assistance in Fiscal Year
2016.’’ 1 Scorecards reflecting each
country’s performance on the indicators
are available on MCC’s Web site at
www.mcc.gov/scorecards.
The Board also considered whether
any adjustments should be made for
data gaps, data lags, or recent events
since the indicators were published, as
well as strengths or weaknesses in
particular indicators. Where
appropriate, the Board took into account
additional quantitative and qualitative
information, such as evidence of a
country’s commitment to fighting
corruption, investments in human
development outcomes, or poverty rates.
For example, for additional information
1 Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/
doc/report-selection-criteria-and-methodology-fy16.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
81869
in the area of corruption, the Board
considered how a country is evaluated
by supplemental sources like
Transparency International’s Corruption
Perceptions Index, the Global Integrity
Report, Open Government Partnership
status, and the Extractive Industry
Transparency Initiative, among others,
as well as on the defined indicator. The
Board may also take into account the
margin of error around an indicator,
when applicable. In keeping with
legislative directives, the Board also
considered the opportunity to reduce
poverty and promote economic growth
in a country, in light of the overall
information available, as well as the
availability of appropriated funds.
This was the sixth year the Board
considered the eligibility of countries
for subsequent compacts, as permitted
under section 609(k) of the Act (22
U.S.C. 7708(k)). The Board also
considered the eligibility of countries
for initial compacts. The Board sees the
selection decision as an annual
opportunity to determine where MCC
funds can be most effectively invested
to support poverty reduction through
economic growth in relatively wellgoverned, poor countries. The Board
carefully considers the appropriate
nature of each country partnership—on
a case by case basis—based on factors
related to economic growth and poverty
reduction, the sustainability of MCC’s
investments, and the country’s ability to
attract and leverage public and private
resources in support of development.
MCC’s engagement with partner
countries is not open-ended, and the
Board is very deliberate when
determining eligibility for follow-on
partnerships. In determining subsequent
compact eligibility, the Board
considered—in addition to the criteria
outlined above—the country’s
performance implementing its first
compact, including the nature of the
country’s partnership with MCC, the
degree to which the country has
demonstrated a commitment and
capacity to achieve program results, and
the degree to which the country has
implemented the compact in accordance
with MCC’s core policies and standards.
To the greatest extent possible, this was
assessed using pre-existing monitoring
and evaluation targets and regular
quarterly reporting. This information
was supplemented with direct surveys
and consultation with MCC staff
responsible for compact
implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation. MCC published a Guide to
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
81870
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2015 / Notices
the Supplemental Information Sheet 2
and a Guide to the Compact Survey
Summary 3 in order to increase
transparency about the type of
supplemental information the Board
uses to assess a country’s policy
performance and compact
implementation performance. The
Board also considered a country’s
commitment to further sector reform, as
well as evidence of improved scorecard
policy performance.
As with previous years, a number of
countries that performed well on the
quantitative elements of the selection
criteria (i.e., on the policy indicators)
were not chosen as eligible countries for
FY 2016. FY 2016 was a particularly
competitive year: Several countries were
already working to develop compacts,
multiple countries passed the scorecard
(some for the first time), and funding
was limited due to budget constraints.
As a result, only three countries that
passed the scorecard were newly
selected for MCC compact eligibility,
and two others for the threshold
program.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Countries Newly Selected for Compact
Eligibility
Using the criteria described above,
Cote d’Ivoire, Kosovo, and Senegal are
the only candidate countries under
section 606(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C.
7705(a)) that were newly selected as
eligible for assistance under section 607
of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706).
Cote d’Ivoire: After years of working
with MCC and MCC indicator
institutions in order to strengthen their
scorecard performance, Cote D’Ivoire
went from passing 5 to 13 indicators
over the last four years, due to updating
data and pursuing policy reforms linked
to the scorecard. In FY 2015, Cote
D’Ivoire met the minimum scorecard
criteria for the first time, passing 10
indicators, including both hard hurdles.
Given the continued improvement from
FY 2015 to FY 2016, selection for a
compact program allows MCC to
continue strengthen its relationship
with Cote d’Ivoire while rewarding
continued policy improvement.
Kosovo: After years of working to
improve data collection and quality, as
well as improve policy outcomes,
Kosovo passed the MCC scorecard for
the first time in FY16, passing 13 of 20
indicators including both hard hurdles
and passing Control of Corruption. The
country remains one of the poorest in
Europe with close to 30% of the
2 Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/
doc/guide-to-supplemental-information-fy16.
3 Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/
doc/guide-to-the-compact-survey-summary-fy15.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Dec 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
population living on less than $2/day,
and an economy highly dependent on
remittances. A compact investment will
serve as an opportunity to reduce
poverty through sustainable economic
development while also building on the
positive relationship built over the past
few years.
Senegal: Senegal has consistently
passed the scorecard criteria for eight
consecutive years and scored above the
90th percentile in Control of Corruption
for three consecutive years. Through its
first compact, Senegal has proven to be
a strong partner, successfully
completing the compact ($540 million)
in September 2015. In working on a
second compact, MCC is able to
continue to partner with the
Government of Senegal to reduce
poverty and support strong economic
investments in the country.
Countries Reselected To Continue
Compact Development
Three of the countries selected as
eligible for compact assistance for FY
2016 were previously selected as
eligible in FY 2015. These countries are
Niger, Nepal and the Philippines. The
Board reselected these countries based
on their continued or improved policy
performance since their prior selection.
The Board also expressed its support for
continued development of a compact
with Mongolia using funds appropriated
in FY 2015 and prior years, as the
country moved in FY 2016 to the upper
middle income category before its
proposal was finalized. The Board
deferred a vote on the selection of
Tanzania and Lesotho and emphasized
the seriousness with which it takes a
country’s commitment to MCC’s
eligibility criteria.
Tanzania: The Board deferred a vote
on Tanzania’s reselection. The Board
discussed the fact that due to ongoing
concerns about the Zanzibar elections,
as well as the use of Tanzania’s Cyber
Crimes legislation in the context of the
national elections, a vote on reselection
would be premature at this time. The
Board may revisit its decision over the
course of 2016 as more information
becomes available.
Lesotho: The Board deferred a vote on
Lesotho’s reselection. The Board
discussed the fact that due to ongoing
concerns over the rule of law and
accountability in the country, and an
expected report from the Southern
Africa Development Community on
these same issues, a vote on reselection
would be premature at this time. The
Board may revisit its decision over the
course of 2016 as more information
becomes available.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
Countries Selected as Eligible To
Receive Threshold Program Assistance
The Board selected Sri Lanka and
Togo as eligible to receive threshold
program assistance.
Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka consistently
passed the scorecard from FY 2011
through FY 2015. Though Sri Lanka
failed the scorecard in FY 2016 due to
failing the democratic rights indicators,
this was largely due to the indicators
reflecting events in 2014, and likely not
yet capturing the democratic rights
improvements following the 2015
elections. A threshold program
investment is an opportunity to build on
this positive momentum, and allows Sri
Lanka the opportunity to further
strengthen its scorecard performance. It
also allows MCC the opportunity to
work with the government on the
country’s ongoing efforts in policy
reform.
Togo: Togo has shown consistent
improvements on the MCC scorecard
over the past three years. A government
committee has been strongly engaged
with MCC to strategize and prioritize
policy improvements, including
reforming the family code to ensure
gender equality and improving control
of corruption. As a result, Togo moved
from passing 5 of 20 indicators in FY
2014 to 10 of 20 indicators in FY 2016.
Togo’s eligibility for threshold program
assistance will allow MCC to engage
with Togo on continued policy reform,
as well as offer Togo an opportunity to
further strengthen its scorecard
performance.
Ongoing Review of Partner Countries’
Policy Performance
Once MCC has signed a compact with
a country, MCC does not consider the
country for reselection on an annual
basis during the term of its compact.
However, the Board emphasized the
need for all partner countries to
maintain or improve their policy
performance. If it is determined during
compact implementation that a country
has demonstrated a significant policy
reversal, MCC can hold it accountable
by applying MCC’s Suspension and
Termination Policy.4
[FR Doc. 2015–32353 Filed 12–30–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
4 Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/
doc/policy-on-suspension-and-termination.
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 251 (Thursday, December 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81868-81870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32353]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION
[MCC FR 15-06]
Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year
2016
AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This report is provided in accordance with section 608(d)(1)
of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, Pub. L. 108-199, Division D,
(the ``Act''), 22 U.S.C. 7708(d)(1).
Dated: December 18, 2015.
Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong,
Vice President and General Counsel, Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2016
Summary
This report is provided in accordance with section 608(d)(1) of the
Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, Public Law 108-199,
Division D, (the ``Act'') (22 U.S.C. 7707(d)(1)).
The Act authorizes the provision of Millennium Challenge Account
[[Page 81869]]
(``MCA'') assistance under section 605 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7704) to
countries that enter into compacts with the United States to support
policies and programs that advance the progress of such countries in
achieving lasting economic growth and poverty reduction, and are in
furtherance of the Act. The Act requires the Millennium Challenge
Corporation (``MCC'') to determine the countries that will be eligible
to receive MCA assistance for the fiscal year, based on their
demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance, economic
freedom, and investing in their people, as well as on the opportunity
to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country. The Act
also requires the submission of reports to appropriate congressional
committees and the publication of notices in the Federal Register that
identify, among other things:
1. The countries that are ``candidate countries'' for assistance
for fiscal year (``FY'') 2016 based on their per-capita income levels
and their eligibility to receive assistance under U.S. law, and
countries that would be candidate countries but for specified legal
prohibitions on assistance (section 608(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C.
7707(a)));
2. The criteria and methodology that the Board of Directors of MCC
(the ``Board'') will use to measure and evaluate the policy performance
of the ``candidate countries'' consistent with the requirements of
section 607 of the Act in order to select ``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 with
which of the eligible countries the Board will seek to enter into
compacts (section 608(d) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7707(d))).
This is the third of the above-described reports by MCC for FY
2016. It identifies countries determined by the Board to be eligible
under section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY 2016 and countries
with which the MCC will seek to enter into compacts under section 609
of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708), as well as the justification for such
decisions. The report also identifies countries determined by the Board
to be eligible for MCC's Threshold Program under section 616 of the Act
(22 U.S.C. 7715).
Eligible Countries
The Board met on December 16, 2015, to select countries that will
be eligible for assistance under section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C.
7706) for FY 2016. The Board selected the following countries as
eligible for such assistance for FY 2016: Cote d'Ivoire, Kosovo, and
Senegal. The Board also reselected the following countries as eligible
for FY 2016 compact assistance: Niger, Nepal, and the Philippines. The
Board did not vote on the re-selection of Tanzania and Lesotho. The
Board also reaffirmed its support for Mongolia's continued effort to
develop its compact proposal that will access funds appropriated to MCC
when Mongolia was a candidate country.
Criteria
In accordance with the Act and with the ``Report on the Criteria
and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries
for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2016''
formally submitted to Congress on September 22, 2015, selection was
based primarily on a country's overall performance in three broad
policy categories: Ruling Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom, and
Investing in People. The Board relied, to the maximum extent possible,
upon transparent and independent indicators to assess countries' policy
performance and demonstrated commitment in these three broad policy
areas. The Board compared countries' performance on the indicators
relative to their income-level peers, evaluating them in comparison to
either the group of low income countries (``LIC'') or the group of
lower middle income countries (``LMIC'').
The criteria and methodology used to assess countries on the annual
scorecards are outlined in the ``Report on the Criteria and Methodology
for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium
Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2016.'' \1\ Scorecards
reflecting each country's performance on the indicators are available
on MCC's Web site at www.mcc.gov/scorecards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/report-selection-criteria-and-methodology-fy16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board also considered whether any adjustments should be made
for data gaps, data lags, or recent events since the indicators were
published, as well as strengths or weaknesses in particular indicators.
Where appropriate, the Board took into account additional quantitative
and qualitative information, such as evidence of a country's commitment
to fighting corruption, investments in human development outcomes, or
poverty rates. For example, for additional information in the area of
corruption, the Board considered how a country is evaluated by
supplemental sources like Transparency International's Corruption
Perceptions Index, the Global Integrity Report, Open Government
Partnership status, and the Extractive Industry Transparency
Initiative, among others, as well as on the defined indicator. The
Board may also take into account the margin of error around an
indicator, when applicable. In keeping with legislative directives, the
Board also considered the opportunity to reduce poverty and promote
economic growth in a country, in light of the overall information
available, as well as the availability of appropriated funds.
This was the sixth year the Board considered the eligibility of
countries for subsequent compacts, as permitted under section 609(k) of
the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708(k)). The Board also considered the eligibility
of countries for initial compacts. The Board sees the selection
decision as an annual opportunity to determine where MCC funds can be
most effectively invested to support poverty reduction through economic
growth in relatively well-governed, poor countries. The Board carefully
considers the appropriate nature of each country partnership--on a case
by case basis--based on factors related to economic growth and poverty
reduction, the sustainability of MCC's investments, and the country's
ability to attract and leverage public and private resources in support
of development.
MCC's engagement with partner countries is not open-ended, and the
Board is very deliberate when determining eligibility for follow-on
partnerships. In determining subsequent compact eligibility, the Board
considered--in addition to the criteria outlined above--the country's
performance implementing its first compact, including the nature of the
country's partnership with MCC, the degree to which the country has
demonstrated a commitment and capacity to achieve program results, and
the degree to which the country has implemented the compact in
accordance with MCC's core policies and standards. To the greatest
extent possible, this was assessed using pre-existing monitoring and
evaluation targets and regular quarterly reporting. This information
was supplemented with direct surveys and consultation with MCC staff
responsible for compact implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. MCC
published a Guide to
[[Page 81870]]
the Supplemental Information Sheet \2\ and a Guide to the Compact
Survey Summary \3\ in order to increase transparency about the type of
supplemental information the Board uses to assess a country's policy
performance and compact implementation performance. The Board also
considered a country's commitment to further sector reform, as well as
evidence of improved scorecard policy performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/guide-to-supplemental-information-fy16.
\3\ Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/guide-to-the-compact-survey-summary-fy15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with previous years, a number of countries that performed well
on the quantitative elements of the selection criteria (i.e., on the
policy indicators) were not chosen as eligible countries for FY 2016.
FY 2016 was a particularly competitive year: Several countries were
already working to develop compacts, multiple countries passed the
scorecard (some for the first time), and funding was limited due to
budget constraints. As a result, only three countries that passed the
scorecard were newly selected for MCC compact eligibility, and two
others for the threshold program.
Countries Newly Selected for Compact Eligibility
Using the criteria described above, Cote d'Ivoire, Kosovo, and
Senegal are the only candidate countries under section 606(a) of the
Act (22 U.S.C. 7705(a)) that were newly selected as eligible for
assistance under section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706).
Cote d'Ivoire: After years of working with MCC and MCC indicator
institutions in order to strengthen their scorecard performance, Cote
D'Ivoire went from passing 5 to 13 indicators over the last four years,
due to updating data and pursuing policy reforms linked to the
scorecard. In FY 2015, Cote D'Ivoire met the minimum scorecard criteria
for the first time, passing 10 indicators, including both hard hurdles.
Given the continued improvement from FY 2015 to FY 2016, selection for
a compact program allows MCC to continue strengthen its relationship
with Cote d'Ivoire while rewarding continued policy improvement.
Kosovo: After years of working to improve data collection and
quality, as well as improve policy outcomes, Kosovo passed the MCC
scorecard for the first time in FY16, passing 13 of 20 indicators
including both hard hurdles and passing Control of Corruption. The
country remains one of the poorest in Europe with close to 30% of the
population living on less than $2/day, and an economy highly dependent
on remittances. A compact investment will serve as an opportunity to
reduce poverty through sustainable economic development while also
building on the positive relationship built over the past few years.
Senegal: Senegal has consistently passed the scorecard criteria for
eight consecutive years and scored above the 90th percentile in Control
of Corruption for three consecutive years. Through its first compact,
Senegal has proven to be a strong partner, successfully completing the
compact ($540 million) in September 2015. In working on a second
compact, MCC is able to continue to partner with the Government of
Senegal to reduce poverty and support strong economic investments in
the country.
Countries Reselected To Continue Compact Development
Three of the countries selected as eligible for compact assistance
for FY 2016 were previously selected as eligible in FY 2015. These
countries are Niger, Nepal and the Philippines. The Board reselected
these countries based on their continued or improved policy performance
since their prior selection. The Board also expressed its support for
continued development of a compact with Mongolia using funds
appropriated in FY 2015 and prior years, as the country moved in FY
2016 to the upper middle income category before its proposal was
finalized. The Board deferred a vote on the selection of Tanzania and
Lesotho and emphasized the seriousness with which it takes a country's
commitment to MCC's eligibility criteria.
Tanzania: The Board deferred a vote on Tanzania's reselection. The
Board discussed the fact that due to ongoing concerns about the
Zanzibar elections, as well as the use of Tanzania's Cyber Crimes
legislation in the context of the national elections, a vote on
reselection would be premature at this time. The Board may revisit its
decision over the course of 2016 as more information becomes available.
Lesotho: The Board deferred a vote on Lesotho's reselection. The
Board discussed the fact that due to ongoing concerns over the rule of
law and accountability in the country, and an expected report from the
Southern Africa Development Community on these same issues, a vote on
reselection would be premature at this time. The Board may revisit its
decision over the course of 2016 as more information becomes available.
Countries Selected as Eligible To Receive Threshold Program Assistance
The Board selected Sri Lanka and Togo as eligible to receive
threshold program assistance.
Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka consistently passed the scorecard from FY 2011
through FY 2015. Though Sri Lanka failed the scorecard in FY 2016 due
to failing the democratic rights indicators, this was largely due to
the indicators reflecting events in 2014, and likely not yet capturing
the democratic rights improvements following the 2015 elections. A
threshold program investment is an opportunity to build on this
positive momentum, and allows Sri Lanka the opportunity to further
strengthen its scorecard performance. It also allows MCC the
opportunity to work with the government on the country's ongoing
efforts in policy reform.
Togo: Togo has shown consistent improvements on the MCC scorecard
over the past three years. A government committee has been strongly
engaged with MCC to strategize and prioritize policy improvements,
including reforming the family code to ensure gender equality and
improving control of corruption. As a result, Togo moved from passing 5
of 20 indicators in FY 2014 to 10 of 20 indicators in FY 2016. Togo's
eligibility for threshold program assistance will allow MCC to engage
with Togo on continued policy reform, as well as offer Togo an
opportunity to further strengthen its scorecard performance.
Ongoing Review of Partner Countries' Policy Performance
Once MCC has signed a compact with a country, MCC does not consider
the country for reselection on an annual basis during the term of its
compact. However, the Board emphasized the need for all partner
countries to maintain or improve their policy performance. If it is
determined during compact implementation that a country has
demonstrated a significant policy reversal, MCC can hold it accountable
by applying MCC's Suspension and Termination Policy.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/policy-on-suspension-and-termination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2015-32353 Filed 12-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P