Comments on: Selecting the Philippines, Partnering with the Private Sector, Enhancing Communications: All in a Week’s Work at MCC http://www.mcc.gov/blog/ceo/2008/03/19/philippines/ Ambassador Danilovich on MCC’s programs and results Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:03:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Sheila Herrling http://www.mcc.gov/blog/ceo/2008/03/19/philippines/#comment-43 Sheila Herrling Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:32:53 +0000 http://www.mcc.gov/blog/2008/03/19/selecting-the-philippines-partnering-with-the-private-sector-enhancing-communications-all-in-a-week%e2%80%99s-work-at-mcc/#comment-43 Ambassador Danilovich, first of all let me say "bravo" to you and your team for continuing to build the MCC's communications and outreach efforts with a view toward greater transparency of MCC operations, policies and programs. In that vein, I have three points related to enhanced transparency, each touched upon by you in your blog. First, the recent posting of the ERR analysis used by the countries and the MCC is a welcome addition to the site and puts the MCC far ahead of other foreign assistance agencies in terms of making this kind of information publicy available. I hope it will also serve to remind people that one of the distinguishing characteristics of the MCC is that it is trying to make the business of aid more business-like And ERR's help on this front as they serve as a valuable accountabilty tool both in terms of choosing viable projects and in terms of grounding the plans for monitoring and evaluating those projects once they are selected. Second, on the changes to the quarterly status reports, I'm not sure it's a win-win on new features vs. enhanced transparency. I like what appears to be a trend toward reporting more concrete achievements along the continuum to compact goals. I regret, however, that the reports have gone from monthly to quarterly. And while I can appreciate the MCC's desire to put less emphasis on disbursement rates as a measure of progress, removing the feature that tracked estimated (at the time of compact signing) disbursements against actual disbursements is going backward on the transparency agenda...particularly, since that comparison is nowhere else on the MCC website. Lastly, on the March decision to add Philippines to the FY2008 eligibility list. Your comment above suggests the Philippines decision was a continuation of the December meeting. Could you confirm that you intend to hold to the once-a-year eligibility selection round? And in the spirit of transparency, if the Board plans to delay consideration of countries beyond that annual decision date, the selection round press release should simply state that fact. For example, the FY2008 country selection round press release could have stated, "the Board is still considering the eligibility of one country and will make its final decision before March 2008." Ambassador Danilovich, first of all let me say “bravo” to you and your team for continuing to build the MCC’s communications and outreach efforts with a view toward greater transparency of MCC operations, policies and programs. In that vein, I have three points related to enhanced transparency, each touched upon by you in your blog.

First, the recent posting of the ERR analysis used by the countries and the MCC is a welcome addition to the site and puts the MCC far ahead of other foreign assistance agencies in terms of making this kind of information publicy available. I hope it will also serve to remind people that one of the distinguishing characteristics of the MCC is that it is trying to make the business of aid more business-like And ERR’s help on this front as they serve as a valuable accountabilty tool both in terms of choosing viable projects and in terms of grounding the plans for monitoring and evaluating those projects once they are selected.

Second, on the changes to the quarterly status reports, I’m not sure it’s a win-win on new features vs. enhanced transparency. I like what appears to be a trend toward reporting more concrete achievements along the continuum to compact goals. I regret, however, that the reports have gone from monthly to quarterly. And while I can appreciate the MCC’s desire to put less emphasis on disbursement rates as a measure of progress, removing the feature that tracked estimated (at the time of compact signing) disbursements against actual disbursements is going backward on the transparency agenda…particularly, since that comparison is nowhere else on the MCC website.

Lastly, on the March decision to add Philippines to the FY2008 eligibility list. Your comment above suggests the Philippines decision was a continuation of the December meeting. Could you confirm that you intend to hold to the once-a-year eligibility selection round? And in the spirit of transparency, if the Board plans to delay consideration of countries beyond that annual decision date, the selection round press release should simply state that fact. For example, the FY2008 country selection round press release could have stated, “the Board is still considering the eligibility of one country and will make its final decision before March 2008.”

]]>