U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
Other State Department Archive SitesU.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
Home Issues & Press Travel & Business Countries Youth & Education Careers About State Video
 You are in: Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs > Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs > All Remarks and Releases > Remarks > 2005

Board's Decision to Approve the First Millennium Challenge Compact With Madagascar

Paul Applegarth, Chief Executive Officer, Millennium Challenge Corporation
On-the-Record Briefing
Washington, DC
March 14, 2005

(2:05 p.m. EST)

MR. TOM CASEY: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome back to, I think, our third event of the day here at the State Department. This one is equally important for us today. As you know, the Millennium Challenge Corporation issued -- or authorized and approved its first compact with the country of Madagascar today, and we have the Millennium Challenge Corporation CEO, Paul Applegarth, with us this afternoon, both to talk about that as well as the ongoing and very important work of the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

So with that, let me turn it over to you. Paul, please come join us. Welcome.

MR. APPLEGARTH: Thank you, John (sic).

Good afternoon. Thank you all for coming. I understand you've had a busy day today and we've had a busy day. So this morning the Millennium Challenge Corporation's Board of Directors approved MCA's first compact with an MCA-eligible country. The compact is a four-year, $110 million program with Madagascar designed to increase incomes and create opportunities for rural Malagasy by unleashing domestic investment.

The compact will create ways for the rural poor to generate wealth by giving them the opportunity to own land, improve their access to credit, and by giving them technical assistance in agricultural practices and in identifying market opportunities.

Poverty in Madagascar is overwhelmingly rural. Eighty percent of Madagascar's poor live in rural areas; therefore, the compact takes a direct rural-focused approach to poverty reduction and economic growth. The funding in the compact will go to support three areas: first, securing formal property rights to land and to make land registration services more efficient; second, to improve a weak banking system to make financial services available to rural areas, improving access to credit, improving credit skills training, and reducing the time it takes -- delays in the time it takes checks to clear from 45 days, if you can imagine, to a target of three days; and to establish a program to help rural Malagasy identify investment opportunities and to train farmers and rural entrepreneurs in production, management and marketing techniques.

There is an additional important benefit in this compact in that Madagascar has one of the most beautiful and diverse ecosystems in the world, and by concentrating on proper management of rural areas the compact is not only going to increase agricultural productivity but also help protect this unique ecosystem.

Funding for the compact is already being spent to build up the Bureau of National Statistics in Madagascar to help measure results in initial data-gathering so we know exactly what we are going to achieve with the taxpayers' money -- with our taxpayers' money -- and the Malagasy will know exactly what they are achieving.

The compact was approved this morning. We've also just notified Congress of its approval; and following the lapse of the statutory periods, we anticipate signing the compact with the Government or Madagascar in early April.

Throughout this process, starting from when Madagascar first submitted its proposal to us in October up until Board approval today, we have engaged and worked cooperatively with the Malagasy as they refine their proposal and set their own development priorities and determine measurable objectives to improve the standard of living for the rural poor.

Credit for this important milestone really goes to the people of Madagascar and its government for having the courage and commitment to create an environment that will allow private domestic investment to spur economic growth. It's a testament to the Government of Madagascar. They took a pro-reform, pro-free market and very people-friendly approach to the MCC process. They realized that reducing poverty and creating economic growth is a national priority and they had a vision. They consulted with their people and they put a great team in place to make this vision happen, and with the support of MCC they have the capacity to make their vision come true.

We are helping them to help themselves and that fundamentally is what Millennium Challenge is all about. And with that, I'd like to open it up for questions.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: What kind of mechanisms are in place to make sure the aid is used as it's supposed to be used?

MR. APPLEGARTH: There's a number of things and that goes to the core of what MCC is all about. First, the fact that this is country ownership, the country determining their priorities, they themselves have a stake in the outcome. Secondly, is part -- once they identify their priorities, that's when the hard work begins from our side its sitting down with them to focus on what are the results you're trying to achieve and how are you going to quantify those. Instead of what are you going to spend the money for, what are you going to get for the money, in terms of poverty reduction, in terms of growth. And these are measurable benchmarks and outcomes so that everybody knows what the results are supposed to be and keep a track -- can keep track on progress. And we set up as part of the compact process not only what the outcomes should be but the benchmarks for performance to see along the way.

In addition, there's detailed implementation plans. And this is where I think it's really been exceptional by Madagascar, is that they have gone from some ideas which they presented to us in the beginning of October and taken those ideas and gone through the recognition of what the outcomes were, and they put the detailed implementation plans in place so that you can track performance.

In addition, we, of course, are fiduciaries for the American taxpayer so we want to make sure the money gets from us to the right place. So we have our own fiduciary standards. We want to make sure we've done due diligence on the people who will get the money and we have set up our own standards in place to make sure that exactly -- that there is not what is euphemistically called "leakage" between where we disburse to the results.

And finally, the compact itself is going to go on the internet as soon as it's signed. Okay? So everybody can see what the compact is, so the beneficiaries can know what the results should be. And if the money's not getting to the right place, they can blow the whistle. And so we would like to see that happen.

In addition -- and this won't be true in every case -- the way the whole government structure is set up in Madagascar, we have a supervisory council which includes not only government officials but actually includes representatives of the private sector and the NGO community on the government council making the core decisions the way a Board would about the implementation of the program. So you don't just have certain members of the government or certain vested interests trying to make a decision. It's broadly -- there's broad participation in the actual decision making on the ongoing basis.

In addition, we have a broader advisory council which has much broader representation that really selects the representatives on the supervisory council. Were going to have NGOs, academia, the private sector, and other representatives of civil society there. So we really -- consistent with the MCC principles of accountability, measurable results, and transparency -- think that this particular compact is an excellent model, an excellent first model for what we're trying to do.

QUESTION: And then how soon might other countries expect to receive similar compacts?

MR. APPLEGARTH: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: How soon might other countries expect to receive similar compacts?

MR. APPLEGARTH: Well, let me quibble with your wording, but only to make a point. It's not when they receive a compact because this is up to them. They drive the timing much more than we do. You know, the old model, in some ways, of donors has been, "Here, you need this, we'll do it for you." That's not our model. Okay? Our model is, "You tell us if you're eligible for MCA, if you've done all the policy changes and shown your commitment to poverty reduction and growth, then you get the opportunity to tell us what your priorities are, and then we'll work with you to make it happen." And that's why the countries drive the timing.

Now, we spent a lot of time at the Board meeting this morning talking about the status of the pipeline; and I think the key thing to know, to go to your question, is that this is not a one-time event today. There is good momentum in our pipeline. Other countries are moving along well to put their plans in place, to identify their outcomes. We've already notified Congress that we've entered into negotiation with three other countries and we're getting ready to send a notification up in the next couple weeks on a fifth country. And so I think you'll see that coming on.

The other thing I would like to emphasize is we talk a lot about country ownership and we think that's key and we certainly don't want to set -- get in the way -- involved or in the way of the priority setting process or the consultative process. But once a country has done that, country ownership doesn't mean that we're letting them sitting there, just sort of trying to figure out things for themselves. We do a whole number of things to help them accelerate the process. We find ways to assist them to move the process along. We're seeing a number of countries take steps; and I would hope to see over the next couple months at least a couple more compacts as part of the beginning of a stream of compacts throughout the year.

Yes, sir, and then here.

QUESTION: Joe Bowab told the Senate committee a couple of weeks ago that he expected them to come every six to eight weeks. So is that basically an accurate idea of how soon you think they'll coming in after this? And can you give a rough estimate of how much you think in total dollars we'll see by the end of the fiscal year?

MR. APPLEGARTH: We actually think we would do a compact probably quicker than every six to eight weeks at this point. Again, we don't drive the timing. We can help on the timing. But as Ive -- at least through this initial first four or five, I would hope we would have the bulk of them done over the next couple, next three or four months, which would be quicker than every six to eight weeks.

In terms of the commitment amount and the disbursement amount, I'd like to give you a more informed answer. Right now, because -- you have to understand as we're developing the compacts with the countries, the amounts change, certain components don't survive due diligence, we're not comfortable they're ready to go. So I would not -- I can't give you an estimate right now in terms of amounts but will certainly, as soon as we have a better handle on that, would like to do that because I think it's very important, both in terms of the number of compacts this year as well as the commitment amount and the disbursement amount. And realize that there's a difference between the commitment amount and the disbursement amount because our commitments are spaced over three to five years and so the disbursements are roughly -- you have to take away whatever the commitment amount is and divide by three or five.

Yes, ma'am. Here, and then here.

QUESTION: In terms of the Board meetings, and this kind of goes along with his question, if you do reach a compact with another country, are you going to have another Board meeting or are you going to stick with the quarterly Board meetings?

MR. APPLEGARTH: No, I think we will move to -- and this is fundamentally up to the Board, but I think the Board provides valuable input into the discussions and the review. We certainly had a very animated discussion this morning, but in a very positive sense, I think, as people and members of the Board had a chance to compare notes. Obviously, when you have a Board of the quality that we do, you receive input from a variety of sources, and we're talking here not only just the Secretary of State and the Treasury Department and the U.S. Trade Representative and Andrew Natsios, the heads of AID and MCC, but Ken Hackett, who heads Catholic Relief Services, Christie Todd Whitman -- everybody brings a lot to the table, and those discussions are important both in the current compact and helping shape understanding of future compacts. Under our legislation it is the Board that must approve a compact, and I think right now the Board anticipates it will be meeting to discuss the compacts.

QUESTION: Sorry if you already said this, but could you say which four -- did you say which four countries that you intend to have compacts with, and what's the fifth country you're negotiating with?

MR. APPLEGARTH: Well, we have notified Congress of our intent to enter into negotiations with four countries. Okay? Madagascar is one of the four. Honduras, Nicaragua and Georgia we've also notified. And we will, I suspect, be notifying in the next couple of weeks on another country, but we have a couple -- I'd rather notify the Hill first, if you don't mind. And we also have some final thing to check --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. APPLEGARTH: Well, I understand that but they would mind also, and there's more of them than there are of you. In addition, they have a little bit more in terms of the amount of funding they're going to provide us. But that's -- but as soon as we can, we'll tell you. And the point is behind that there are other countries coming.

And I should emphasize a notice of intention to negotiate is not a commitment of any sort. We still have to -- we still continue our due diligence on these compacts to make sure that this money is being used well, and is really being used for poverty reduction and growth, and being used consistent with the principles of MCC, which is outcomes-focused and detailed implementation plans, so we have confidence that when the money leaves us it is having the kind of impact that MCC was set up to have in terms of poverty reduction.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up? These four countries, I mean, I know you have a certain set of criteria in terms of, you know, what they plan for poverty reduction, things like that. Do other aspects of U.S. foreign policy enter into the choosing of which countries? I mean, cooperation on other matters such as Iraq and things like that? I mean, these are all countries that have at some time or another committed troops. I'm just wondering if cooperation on other matters of foreign policy enter into deliberations of choice of country, as well as the poverty reduction plans, things like that.

MR. APPLEGARTH: That's a good question. The answer is the Millennium Challenge was set up specifically to promote poverty reduction and growth and to encourage countries to adopt good policies that promote poverty reduction and promote growth. There are other aspects of foreign assistance that do many other things than what we do. There are some that are focused on flood relief or earthquake relief, humanitarian aid, or rewarding your friends. But the Board takes very seriously trying to apply the principles of MCC, which are the 16 indicators we use on the website, because those indicators are linked to poverty reduction and growth. And Millennium Challenge will only have its true impact if governments believe that those criteria are what's driving the Board's decisions. And it's those criteria and those policies that ultimately promote poverty reduction and the minute you start to introduce other elements into the decision making, you cut out the core of what MCC is about. Okay? So we want to encourage governments to adopt good policies, and we're seeing them do it because of the incentive effect of Millennium Challenge. And that is key. The Board takes it very seriously. I think if you look at our website and look at the data and look at the indicators, adjusting for the case where the data is -- a government has changed or the data is dated --

QUESTION: But the Board itself is the one that chooses the countries?

MR. APPLEGARTH: Absolutely, yes. And they pick them -- and we had the first selection in May and again in November.

Yes, sir, and then I'll come around here.

QUESTION: Yeah. Any Arab world countries in this have expressed interest or coming close to the pipeline? That's obviously a corollary to the previous question.

MR. APPLEGARTH: Right. Under the -- Millennium Challenge is targeted to the poorest countries of the world and those -- it's a competition for countries, and they essentially compete against each other. And in FY '04 and '05 the ceiling varied a little bit due to exchange rate where weve seen inflation -- but it was roughly $1,450 per capita income maximum, and that disqualified much of what you would call the Arab world because most of them are -- have incomes above that per capita.

It does not exclude a number of Islamic countries; for example, Mali, Senegal, certainly there are significant Muslim populations in Benin, and a number of the countries we've selected. Or in Morocco, which we picked in November. But a number of the Middle Eastern countries are above it -- our per capita income ceiling -- and the others, unfortunately, would not rank well in terms of the kinds of policies that we are indicating, particularly in the good governance area. You can go on the website and look at the countries -- each of them there and how they score is there -- and you'll see that a lot of them simply haven't taken the steps to -- in their political systems or in their investing in people categories or in their promoting economic freedom categories that would -- that really indicates their governments are committed to poverty reduction and growth.

Now, a couple are close. Yemen in particular has been named a threshold country. They were named in November, and we are hoping to receive a proposal from them tomorrow because that's the deadline for receiving the '05 threshold country program proposals.

QUESTION: Where's the difference between the threshold and the pipeline here?

MR. APPLEGARTH: The difference is we have -- eligible countries are countries that are told, "Congratulations, you have -- MCC's Board has recognized the steps you've taken to put policies in place that promote poverty reduction." Threshold countries are, as the name implies, close or on the threshold; but where, instead of qualifying with the privileges of being eligible, which is the country gets to tell us, "We've consulted broadly in our country and these are our priorities for poverty reduction and growth, would you assist us, MCC, in working in these," threshold countries have the priorities defined for them. They have to -- if they come in to us and say, would you give us a program proposal to focus on corruption or political rights or something useful, things that are failing under our criteria so that they have a better chance of qualifying for eligibility the next time the Board considers it.

Yes, sir. George, how are you today?

QUESTION: I believe this announcement today is the first one and it has occurred almost three years to the day after the President first proposed this particular fund, right? What does this say about the speed with which government operates? I mean, you want to make an impact and you're only --

MR. APPLEGARTH: Right.

QUESTION: -- making your first commitment after three years.

MR. APPLEGARTH: Well, I think it's actually three years today; its purely a coincidence, however. But the reality is Millennium Challenge was not established until 14 months ago, end of January -- in fact, less than 14 months ago, 13 months ago, end of January 2004 -- as part of the big omnibus last year. And that's the date from which our clock can really start. What happened before then, I will leave to you all to analyze and think about.

But I think since then, if you look at it, the track record has been extraordinary. In three years -- it frustrates me, frankly, to talk about the three years because it doesn't recognize what's really going on here. Okay? The 14 months started at the end of January. Very shortly after that, we had the first Board meeting. I mean, almost as soon as possible. And that's an editorial "we" because I wasn't -- I couldn't even be nominated until the job existed, and then I had to be confirmed. But on the 90th day after we named candidate countries, which is sort of the list of countries in the competition, the Board met on May 6 and we picked the first group of eligible countries, on the very first day we could under our legislative minimum.

And to do that we also had to accelerate the publication of the rules, of the criteria, and guidelines, essentially the rules of the competition; because there was a 60-day minimum that Congress put in for that, and we wanted to make sure that the 60 days didn't extend beyond the 90 days, so there was a lot of work early on to make that happen.

On the 90th day, the first 16 countries were picked. That started a consultative process within the countries where they have to pick their priorities. And it -- we would say, "Don't go off the shelf and pull something that's been sitting there unfunded that somebody else designed for you. Really think about this because Millennium Challenge is unique in its flexibility and its size and how the countries can use it."

They could come in and do all sorts of things that they haven't been able to consider before because we don't have rules that it's limited to a certain sector or a certain part of the population. We let the -- or that it's tied even to U.S. procurement. Where the country could say this is what we really want to do, but we said, "We don't want one or two of you guys picking it. We want you to have a serious consultation in the country."

And so we wanted to know this is a national priority, reached at through a discussion, a broad discussion within the country. And so we saw in some of our countries' town meetings -- they set up a series of town meetings around the country. Tonight is MCC night in our region. What should be our MCC priority? We saw televised debates on national television between the MCC councils -- there was only a government, and in one case representatives of NGOs, in another case representatives of the business community. We saw websites being set up. We saw invitations for letters to the editor.

Every country did it differently. Some did it better than others and that's part of our due diligence. But all that process started shortly after May. We got our first proposal in mid-August. As of the end of November, of the original 16 countries, we had 15 proposals. Fifteen and sixteen came in by the end of November. One of those countries still hasn't submitted its proposal. We can't really do anything to push the process along until -- we can do some things, but we don't want to interfere in the consultative process. But the minute the proposal comes in, that's when we can really weigh in.

But I don't want to overstate MCC's contribution. We do a lot to help the countries move the process along. But Madagascar -- and this proposal came in, I think, October the 4. Internally within Millennium Challenge, we approved that proposal in the third week of February. That's only four and a half months from the time basically a group of ideas came in from Madagascar, and it went from priorities to actual outcomes, detailed implementation plans and proposed governing structures and other things that we could have confidence in and believe that this is something we could sign up for. The time from end of February is really time for the Board to get the documentation, review it, and then we still have another couple weeks for the Hill. But that compared to not only the public sector standards -- ask the World Bank how long it takes them or others -- but even by the private sector to go from a proposal to a signed deal in this period of time really is quite something, and I would give Madagascar credit for it.

QUESTION: You have a billion and a half, is that right, for this fiscal year?

MR. APPLEGARTH: We have fiscal year '04 at an appropriation of a billion, '05 is a billion and a half, and the President has asked for 3 billion for '06.

QUESTION: All right. Now, you have 16 countries of which Madagascar is one, right?

MR. APPLEGARTH: We actually now have 17. We added Morocco in November. In addition, we have 13 threshold countries. So it's a total of 30 countries, roughly 400 million people. So this is a significant number of people potentially benefiting from MCC's operations directly, in addition to those that are benefiting because policies are being changed elsewhere in the developing world to improve those countries' prospects for MCC qualification. And at the end of the day, it's the policy changes that we are encouraging that will have the biggest impact on poverty reduction in these countries.

QUESTION: You say this is the new model?

MR. APPLEGARTH: This is?

QUESTION: This is the new model for assisting third world countries. Do you think in ten years, MCC is going to dominate the scene in terms of foreign assistance and the old way of doing things will be discarded?

MR. APPLEGARTH: I think it is a new model. I wouldn't say it is the new model. I think it is a new model. I think we are clearly built on lessons of the past: things that have worked well, things that didn't work so well. No question that there have been a lot of -- there have been a lot of successes in foreign assistance over the years, some of them don't get the publicity. There's a lot of things that haven't worked very well.

We've tried to take the best, learn from the best of the things that work and take lessons from things that didn't work very well; and put them all in one entity; put a lot of money behind it -- certainly not enough compared to the needs -- put money behind it; and have the United States do it. Those three stories are really very important. This is a new model with a lot of money and the U.S. do it -- is important to the way development works.

We are experimenting with some things. Some things may not work very well. But we're certainly experimenting and pushing the envelope with the country ownership piece. But we think that is a lesson from development -- and that's not an experiment -- that countries have to own the process.

Secondly, we think having it policy-driven. At the end of the day, one of the lessons is if governments don't put good policies in place that promote poverty reduction, they're not going to -- it's not going to happen. Donors can't develop a country, Millennium Challenge cannot develop a country, but we can help a country develop itself; but they really have to take responsibility and leadership for it.

Would I like to see other programs over time be more effective, be focused on outcomes? Yes. With detailed implementation plans? Yes. Because this ultimately is, I believe, and I think the people at MCC believe, how you really have an impact on poverty reduction and growth. In addition, in an era of scarce resources you have to know that your money is getting the best, highest growth return and poverty reduction return for what you're doing.

And this kind of discipline I think is helpful. I would like to -- I think other donors and other institutions will look at what we're doing. They will take the best of what we're doing. They'll go from our lessons learned. Maybe other parts of the U.S. Government, other programs can use the same kind of things in terms of -- have measurable outcomes, results, detailed implementation plans, before they make a commitment. Because that's what we insist on. Before we put the money in, we want to know what the expectation is for results, how are you going to measure it, and how are you going to get there.

MR. CASEY: I think we've got time for, like, one more, maybe one --

MR. APPLEGARTH: How about two? Could I have enough discretion that I can do two, because I see two?

Okay. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Part of the -- it goes back to George's question. Secretary Rice has been on the receiving end of some very harsh criticism when she's gone up to the Hill about the MCC in the sense that Congressmen on both sides of the aisle believe that the money has just been sitting there for the last two and a half years and they criticize the pace. They say we've got this money appropriated, why don't we spend it? I heard you explain your side of why it took so long to get this ball rolling. But, I mean, did they have an effect on your getting this process rolling as of today, I mean, because of their criticism?

MR. APPLEGARTH: Yeah, I actually think -- well, first, nobody, I think, claims the money has been sitting there for two and a half years because they know the first piece didn't get appropriated until the end of January. I think people that are not as close to MCC as you all are, are those that perhaps think to the three-year date.

But, for example, in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last Thursday, Senator Biden got -- said -- he went on the record publicly in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and said he thought it was absolutely fine that MCC had not yet begun disbursements under compacts because he said that it was really being done the right way, the way he envisioned it. And I think that's the lesson. And that's what we're -- why I emphasize, actually, the process has gone extraordinarily fast from the time that MCC was set up, and if you look at the minimum deadlines and what we're asking the countries to do.

Would I like it to go faster? Yes, within the bounds of prudence. But the reality is there are not a lot of things you can do to be faster without cutting corners that nobody wants because doing effective programs is what this program is ultimately all about and how success will be measured. And if you think this is the model for going forward, doing it right is key. A big screw-up early on would really hurt, I think, the developing world.

And so we are pushing, and our partner countries are pushing, as fast as possible. You all can help to educate sort of the -- those that only see -- think you solve a problem by simply throwing money at it fast. I think you try to move it fast and you get a plan in place fast, you disburse it fast; but there are things about partnership, about ownership, about the details that really make the difference between success and failure.

And the more you all can do to educate those that are less -- are not as close to it as the sponsors on both sides of the aisle, up on the Hill. And I think there are a lot of good leaders on the Hill who do get it, both Democrats and Republicans, who are quite pleased with how MCC is doing, what it's doing and how it's going about it. And I think the more that we can deal with those that are sort of less informed, it's helpful because -- I tell you, because it's important point for MCC but it's more important -- it's important for the developing world because the comments like "it's been three -- it's three years, there is no disbursements," is an excuse by those who may not care so much about it to cut funding requests or to cut the funding, cut the appropriation. And that at the end of the day is not in the interest of the developing world, nor it is in the interest of the United States because not only are we a projection of American values in that we're promoting freedom and democracy, but we are also -- at the end of the day, there's inevitably an anti-terrorism and a security element of what we're doing, which is important. And it's important that the funding that the President's asked for be there, and of course it's important that we use it well and we can show to everybody that it will be used well.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I mean, you talked a lot about the issues of accountability and structural -- the economic reforms and the social reforms and political reforms and all that that's going on; but if you can set that aside, can you explain when it actually gets down to the project actually happening, how it will happen differently under this program than it would have happened under a traditional program? Like you talked about one of the three things from Madagascar was to improve the banking system. I mean, is the entity that's going to actually come into Madagascar or do it from within Madagascar going to be different than what would've done -- would've been done if it were a USAID project to do basically the same thing?

MR. APPLEGARTH: Well, I actually think that the third element of this proposal is similar to the way some of the things that USAID does, which is promote -- examine ways for promoting agricultural productivity and to looking for market opportunities. I think you would even find elements, a little bit, in other parts of the AID program. And I think AID would like to do more of the kind of things we're doing. It doesn't have a lot of -- a lot of its money is earmarked. That's no secret.

But the key, first key here, is country ownership. It is the Malagasy themselves who pick the priorities. Secondly, they feel responsibility for it. Third, I don't think you would see the kind of commitment to land titling here or certainly the financial sector elements of this in a traditional donor program, or it would be rare that you would find it targeted to this.

But the Malagasy really understand that to get as a precondition for true growth in rural areas, you've got to do something so that people can get paid for their products. And that's -- you just -- we don't -- if it was happening before, then why does it need to be done now? I mean, I think that's the proof in some of this. And I'd be glad to talk more about it. I know I see John (sic) is getting nervous over here and presumably some of my colleagues are getting nervous about giving me the hook and getting me somewhere else. But there are significant differences; I'd be glad to talk about it at some greater length.

It goes from the whole country ownership piece to the focus on outcomes in advance, implementation plans in advance, and just the whole model is quite different than just generally applied by many donors. And it's not to say it's completely new and different. It isn't. It's built on what other people have been doing, but putting it all in one place I think is different.

Good. Well thank you all very much.

2005/323


Released on March 14, 2005

  Back to top

U.S. Department of State
USA.govU.S. Department of StateUpdates  |   Frequent Questions  |   Contact Us  |   Email this Page  |   Subject Index  |   Search
The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department. External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.
About state.gov  |   Privacy Notice  |   FOIA  |   Copyright Information  |   Other U.S. Government Information

Published by the U.S. Department of State Website at http://www.state.gov maintained by the Bureau of Public Affairs.