Compact of Free Association
Implementation Activities Have Progressed, but the Marshall Islands Faces Challenges to Achieving Long-Term Compact Goals Gao ID: GAO-07-1258T September 25, 2007In 2003, the U.S. government extended its economic assistance to the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) through an Amended Compact of Free Association. From 2004 to 2023, the United States will provide an estimated $1.5 billion to the RMI, with annually decreasing grants as well as increasing contributions to a trust fund. The assistance, targeting six sectors, is aimed at assisting the country's efforts to promote economic advancement and budgetary self-reliance. The trust fund is to be invested and provide income for the RMI after compact grants end. The Department of the Interior (Interior) administers and oversees this assistance. Drawing on prior GAO reports (GAO-05-633, GAO-06-590, GAO-07-163, GAO-07-513, GAO-07-514R), this testimony discusses (1) the RMI's economic prospects, (2) implementation of the amended compact to meet long-term goals, and (3) potential trust fund earnings. In conducting its prior work, GAO visited the RMI, reviewed reports, interviewed officials and experts, and used a simulation model to project the trust fund's income. Prior GAO reports recommended, among other things, that Interior work with the RMI to address lack of progress in implementing reforms; plan for declining grants; reliably measure progress; and ensure timely reporting on the fund's likely status as a source of revenue after 2023. Interior agreed with GAO's recommendations.
The RMI has limited prospects for achieving its long-term development goals and has not enacted policy reforms needed to achieve economic growth. The RMI economy depends on public sector spending of foreign assistance rather than on private sector or remittance income. At the same time, the two private sector industries identified as having growth potential--fisheries and tourism--face significant barriers to expansion because of a costly business environment. RMI emigrants also lack marketable skills needed to increase revenue from remittances. Despite declining grants under the compact, RMI progress in implementing key policy reforms to improve the private sector environment, such as tax or land reform, has been slow. In August 2006, the RMI's compact management committee began to address the country's slow progress in implementing reforms. Although the RMI has made progress in implementing compact assistance, it faces several challenges in allocating and using this assistance to support its long-term development goals. RMI grant allocations have reflected compact priorities by targeting health, education, and infrastructure. However, political disagreement over land use in Kwajalein Atoll, where the United States has a missile testing facility, and over management of public entities has negatively affected infrastructure projects. The RMI also has not planned for long-term sustainability of services that takes into account declining compact assistance. Inadequate baseline data and incomplete performance reports have further limited the RMI's ability to adequately measure progress. Although single-audit reporting has been timely, insufficient staff and skills have limited the RMI's ability to monitor day-to-day sector grant operations. Interior's Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) has conducted administrative oversight of the sector grants but has been constrained by competing oversight priorities. The RMI trust fund may not provide sustainable income for the country after compact grants end. Market volatility and the choice of investment strategy could cause the RMI trust fund balance to vary widely, and there is increasing probability that in some years the trust fund will not reach the maximum disbursement level allowed--an amount equal to the inflation-adjusted compact grants in 2023--or be able to disburse any income. In addition, although the RMI has supplemented its trust fund income with a contribution from Taiwan, other sources of income are uncertain or entail risk. Trust fund management processes have also been problematic; as of June 2007, the RMI trust fund committee had not appointed an independent auditor or a money manager to invest the fund according to the proposed investment strategy.
GAO-07-1258T, Compact of Free Association: Implementation Activities Have Progressed, but the Marshall Islands Faces Challenges to Achieving Long-Term Compact Goals
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1258T
entitled 'Compact of Free Association: Implementation Activities Have
Progressed, but the Marshall Islands Faces Challenges to Achieving Long-
Term Compact Goals' which was released on September 25, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT:
Tuesday, September 25, 2007:
Compact Of Free Association:
Implementation Activities Have Progressed, but the Marshall Islands
Faces Challenges to Achieving Long-Term Compact Goals:
Statement of David B. Gootnick, Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Compact of Free Association:
GAO-07-1258T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1258T, a testimony to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 2003, the U.S. government extended its economic assistance to the
Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) through an Amended Compact of
Free Association. From 2004 to 2023, the United States will provide an
estimated $1.5 billion to the RMI, with annually decreasing grants as
well as increasing contributions to a trust fund. The assistance,
targeting six sectors, is aimed at assisting the country‘s efforts to
promote economic advancement and budgetary self-reliance. The trust
fund is to be invested and provide income for the RMI after compact
grants end. The Department of the Interior (Interior) administers and
oversees this assistance. Drawing on prior GAO reports (GAO-05-633, GAO-
06-590, GAO-07-163, GAO-07-513, GAO-07-514R), this testimony discusses
(1) the RMI‘s economic prospects, (2) implementation of the amended
compact to meet long-term goals, and (3) potential trust fund earnings.
In conducting its prior work, GAO visited the RMI, reviewed reports,
interviewed officials and experts, and used a simulation model to
project the trust fund‘s income.
Prior GAO reports recommended, among other things, that Interior work
with the RMI to address lack of progress in implementing reforms; plan
for declining grants; reliably measure progress; and ensure timely
reporting on the fund‘s likely status as a source of revenue after
2023. Interior agreed with GAO‘s recommendation
What GAO Found:
The RMI has limited prospects for achieving its long-term development
goals and has not enacted policy reforms needed to achieve economic
growth. The RMI economy depends on public sector spending of foreign
assistance rather than on private sector or remittance income. At the
same time, the two private sector industries identified as having
growth potential”fisheries and tourism”face significant barriers to
expansion because of a costly business environment. RMI emigrants also
lack marketable skills needed to increase revenue from remittances.
Despite declining grants under the compact, RMI progress in
implementing key policy reforms to improve the private sector
environment, such as tax or land reform, has been slow. In August 2006,
the RMI‘s compact management committee began to address the country‘s
slow progress in implementing reforms.
Although the RMI has made progress in implementing compact assistance,
it faces several challenges in allocating and using this assistance to
support its long-term development goals. RMI grant allocations have
reflected compact priorities by targeting health, education, and
infrastructure. However, political disagreement over land use in
Kwajalein Atoll, where the United States has a missile testing
facility, and over management of public entities has negatively
affected infrastructure projects. The RMI also has not planned for long-
term sustainability of services that takes into account declining
compact assistance. Inadequate baseline data and incomplete performance
reports have further limited the RMI‘s ability to adequately measure
progress. Although single-audit reporting has been timely, insufficient
staff and skills have limited the RMI‘s ability to monitor day-to-day
sector grant operations. Interior‘s Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) has
conducted administrative oversight of the sector grants but has been
constrained by competing oversight priorities.
The RMI trust fund may not provide sustainable income for the country
after compact grants end. Market volatility and the choice of
investment strategy could cause the RMI trust fund balance to vary
widely, and there is increasing probability that in some years the
trust fund will not reach the maximum disbursement level allowed”an
amount equal to the inflation-adjusted compact grants in 2023”or be
able to disburse any income. In addition, although the RMI has
supplemented its trust fund income with a contribution from Taiwan,
other sources of income are uncertain or entail risk. Trust fund
management processes have also been problematic; as of June 2007, the
RMI trust fund committee had not appointed an independent auditor or a
money manager to invest the fund according to the proposed investment
strategy.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on GAO-07-1258T. For more information, contact
David Gootnick at (202) 512-3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss GAO's recent work regarding
the Compact of Free Association between the United States and the
Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). From 1987 through
2003,[Footnote 1] the United States provided more than $2 billion in
economic assistance to the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the
RMI under a Compact of Free Association; [Footnote 2] approximately
$579 million of this economic assistance went to the RMI. In 2003, the
U.S. government approved an amended compact with the RMI that provides
an additional 20 years of assistance, totaling about $1.5 billion from
2004 through 2023.[Footnote 3] The Department of the Interior's Office
of Insular Affairs (OIA) is responsible for administering and
monitoring this U.S. assistance.
The amended compact with the RMI identifies the additional 20 years of
grant assistance as intended to assist the RMI government in its
efforts to promote the economic advancement and budgetary self-reliance
of its people. The assistance is provided in the form of annually
decreasing grants that prioritize health and education, paired with
annually increasing contributions to trust funds intended as a source
of revenue for the country after the grants end in 2023. The amended
compact targets certain funds to address needs in Kwajalein Atoll,
where the United States maintains a missile testing facility. The
amended compact also contains several new funding and accountability
provisions that strengthen reporting and bilateral interaction. These
provisions include requiring the establishment of a joint economic
management committee and a trust fund committee to, respectively, among
other things, review the RMI's progress toward compact objectives and
to assess the trust fund's effectiveness in contributing to the
country's long-term economic advancement and budgetary self-reliance.
In 2003, we testified that these provisions could improve
accountability over assistance but that successful implementation will
require appropriate resources and sustained commitment from both the
United States and the RMI.[Footnote 4]
Today, drawing on several reports that we have published since
2005,[Footnote 5] I will discuss the RMI's economic prospects,
implementation of the amended compact to meet its long-term goals, and
potential trust fund earnings.
Summary:
The RMI has limited prospects for achieving its long-term development
objectives and has not enacted policy reforms needed to enable economic
growth. The RMI depends on public sector spending of foreign assistance
rather than on private sector or remittance income; public sector
expenditure accounts for more than half of its gross domestic product
(GDP). The RMI government budget largely depends on foreign assistance
and, despite annual decrements in compact funding to support budgetary
expenditures, is characterized by a growing wage bill. Meanwhile, the
two private sector industries identified as having growth potential--
fisheries and tourism--face significant barriers to expansion because
of the RMI's remote geographic location, inadequate infrastructure, and
poor business environment. In addition, RMI emigrants lack marketable
skills that are needed to increase revenue from remittances. Moreover,
progress in implementing key policy reforms necessary to improve the
private sector environment has been slow. For example, although
economic experts describe the RMI's current tax system as complex and
regressive, the RMI government has not implemented fundamental tax
reform. Further, although the RMI has established land registration
offices, continued uncertainties over land ownership and land values
hamper the use of land as an asset. Foreign investment regulations
remain burdensome, and RMI government involvement in commercial
activities continues to hinder private sector development. Moreover, at
the time of our 2006 report, the RMI's compact management committee had
not addressed the country's slow progress in implementing reforms.
The RMI has made progress in implementing compact assistance, but it
faces several challenges in allocating and using this assistance to
support its long-term development goals. RMI grant allocations have
reflected compact priorities by targeting health, education, and
infrastructure--for example, funding construction of nine new schools.
However, in the case of Kwajalein Atoll, political disagreement over
management of public entities and government use of leased land has
negatively affected the construction of schools and the use of compact
funds set aside for Ebeye special needs.[Footnote 6] The RMI also has
not planned for long-term sustainability of services that takes into
account the annual funding decrement. Capacity limitations have further
affected its ability to ensure the effective use of grant funds. The
RMI currently lacks the capacity to adequately measure progress, owing
to inadequate baseline data and incomplete performance reports.
Moreover, although accountability--as measured by timeliness in single
audit reporting and corrective action plans to single audit findings--
has improved, insufficient staff and skills have limited the RMI's
ability to monitor day-to-day sector grant operations as the compacts
require. Inadequate communication about grant implementation may
further hinder the U.S. and RMI governments from ensuring the grants'
effective use. Although Interior's Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) has
conducted administrative oversight of the sector grants, its oversight
has similarly been constrained by staffing challenges and the need to
assist the FSM with its compact implementation activities.
The RMI trust fund may not provide sustainable income for the country
after compact grants end, potential sources for supplementing trust
fund income have limitations, and the trust fund committee has
experienced management challenges. Market volatility and the choice of
investment strategy could cause the RMI trust fund balance to vary
widely, and there is increasing probability that in some years the
trust fund will not reach the maximum disbursement level allowed--an
amount equal to the inflation-adjusted compact grants in 2023--or be
able to disburse any income. The trust fund committee's reporting has
not analyzed the fund's potential effectiveness in helping the RMI
achieve its long-term economic goals. Although the RMI has supplemented
its trust fund income with a contribution from Taiwan, other sources of
income are uncertain or entail risk. For example, the RMI's limited
development prospects constrain its ability to raise tax revenues to
supplement the fund's income, and options such as securitization--
issuing bonds against future U.S. contributions--include the risk of
lower fund balances and reduced income. Furthermore, according to U.S.
government officials, trust fund management processes have been
problematic. As of June 2007, for example, the RMI trust fund committee
had not appointed an independent auditor or a money manager to invest
the fund according to the proposed investment strategy.
Our previous reports on the amended compacts recommended, among other
things, that Interior's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Insular Affairs
ensure that the compact management committee address the RMI's lack of
progress in implementing economic reforms; work with the RMI to develop
plans for minimizing the impact of the declining grants; work with the
RMI to fully develop a reliable mechanism for measuring progress toward
compact goals; and ensure the trust fund committee's timely reporting
on the fund's likely status as a source of revenue after 2023. Interior
generally concurred with our recommendations and has taken some actions
in response to several of them.
Background:
Compact of Free Association: 1986-2003:
In 1986, the United States, the FSM, and the RMI entered into the
original Compact of Free Association. The compact provided a framework
for the United States to work toward achieving its three main goals:
(1) to secure self-government for the FSM and the RMI, (2) to ensure
certain national security rights for all of the parties, and (3) to
assist the FSM and the RMI in their efforts to advance economic
development and self-sufficiency. Under the original compact, the FSM
and RMI also benefited from numerous U.S. federal programs, while
citizens of both nations exercised their right under the compact to
live and work in the United States as "nonimmigrants" and to stay for
long periods of time.
Although the first and second goals of the original compact were met,
economic self-sufficiency was not achieved under the first compact. The
FSM and the RMI became independent nations in 1978 and 1979,
respectively, and the three countries established key defense rights,
including securing U.S. access to military facilities on Kwajalein
Atoll in the RMI through 2016. The compact's third goal was to be
accomplished primarily through U.S. direct financial assistance to the
FSM and the RMI that totaled $2.1 billion from 1987 through
2003.[Footnote 7] However, estimated FSM and RMI per capita GDP levels
at the close of the compact did not exceed, in real terms, those in the
early 1990s,[Footnote 8] although U.S. assistance had maintained income
levels that were higher than the two countries could have achieved
without support. In addition, we found that the U.S., FSM, and RMI
governments provided little accountability over compact expenditures
and that many compact-funded projects experienced problems because of
poor planning and management, inadequate construction and maintenance,
or misuse of funds.[Footnote 9]
Amended Compacts of Free Association: 2004-2023:
In 2003, the United States approved separate amended compacts with the
FSM and RMI that (1) continue the defense relationship, including a new
agreement providing U.S. military access to Kwajalein Atoll in the RMI
through 2086; (2) strengthen immigration provisions; and (3) provide an
estimated $3.6 billion in financial assistance to both nations from
2004 through 2023, including about $1.5 billion to the RMI (see app.
I).[Footnote 10] The amended compacts identify the additional 20 years
of grant assistance as intended to assist the FSM and RMI governments
in their efforts to promote the economic advancement and budgetary
self-reliance of their people. Financial assistance is provided in the
form of annual sector grants and contributions to each nation's trust
fund. The amended compacts and their subsidiary agreements, along with
the countries' development plans, target the grant assistance to six
sectors--education, health, public infrastructure, the environment,
public sector capacity building, and private sector development--
prioritizing two sectors, education and health.[Footnote 11] Further,
the amended compact stipulates that certain funding be made available
to address the population's needs on Kwajalein Atoll. To provide
increasing U.S. contributions to the FSM's and the RMI's trust funds,
grant funding decreases annually and will likely result in falling per
capita grant assistance over the funding period and relative to the
original compact (see fig. 1).[Footnote 12] For example, in 2004 U.S.
dollar terms, FSM per capita grant assistance will fall from around
$1,352 in 1987 to around $562 in 2023, and RMI per capita assistance
will fall from around $1,170 in 1987 to around $317 in 2023.
Figure 1: Estimated FSM and RMI Per Capita Compact Grant Assistance for
Fiscal Years 1987-2023:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of amended compacts and U.S. Census population
projections.
Note: Compact grant assistance was decreased in 1991, 1996, and 2001
and increased in 2002 and 2003 to equal an average of the funding
provided during the previous 15 years. Compact grant assistance under
the amended compacts (2004-2024) is decreased annually. U.S.
contributions to each country's trust funds increase by the same amount
as the grant decrement. Funding for compact-authorized federal
services, trust-fund contributions, and U.S. military use of Kwajalein
Atoll land is not included.
[End of figure]
Under the amended compacts, annual grant assistance is to be made
available in accordance with an implementation framework that has
several components (see app. II). For example, prior to the annual
awarding of compact funds, the countries must submit development plans
that identify goals and performance objectives for each sector. The FSM
and RMI governments are also required to monitor day-to-day operations
of sector grants and activities, submit periodic financial and
performance reports for the tracking of progress against goals and
objectives, and ensure annual financial and compliance audits. In
addition, the U.S. and FSM Joint Economic Management Committee (JEMCO)
and the U.S. and RMI Joint Economic Management and Financial
Accountability Committee (JEMFAC) are to approve annual sector grants
and evaluate the countries' management of the grants and their progress
toward compact goals. The amended compacts also provide for the
formation of FSM and RMI trust fund committees to, among other things,
hire money managers, oversee the respective funds' operation and
investment, and provide annual reports on the effectiveness of the
funds.
Current Development Prospects Remain Limited for the RMI:
The RMI economy shows limited potential for developing sustainable
income sources other than foreign assistance to offset the annual
decline in U.S. compact grant assistance. In addition, the RMI has not
enacted economic policy reforms needed to improve its growth prospects.
The RMI's economy shows continued dependence on government spending of
foreign assistance and limited potential for expanded private sector
and remittance income.
* Since 2000, the estimated public sector share of GDP has grown, with
public sector expenditure in 2005--about two-thirds of which is funded
by external grants--accounting for about 60 percent of GDP.
* The RMI's government budget is characterized by limited tax revenue
paired with growing government payrolls. For example, RMI taxes have
consistently provided less than 30 percent of total government revenue;
however, payroll expenditures have roughly doubled, from around $17
million in 2000 to around $30 million in 2005.
* The RMI development plan identifies fishing and tourism as key
potential private sector growth industries. However, the two industries
combined currently provide less than 5 percent of employment,[Footnote
13] and both industries face significant constraints to growth that
stem from structural barriers and a costly business environment.
According to economic experts, growth in these industries is limited by
factors such as geographic isolation, lack of tourism infrastructure,
inadequate interisland shipping, a limited pool of skilled labor, and a
growing threat of overfishing.
* Although remittances from emigrants could provide increasing monetary
support to the RMI, evidence suggests that RMI emigrants are currently
limited in their income-earning opportunities abroad owing to
inadequate education and vocational skills. For example, the 2003 U.S.
census of RMI migrants in Hawaii, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas Islands reveals that only 7 percent of those 25 years
and older had a college degree and almost half of RMI emigrants lived
below the poverty line.[Footnote 14]
Although the RMI has undertaken efforts aimed at economic policy
reform,[Footnote 15] it has made limited progress in implementing key
tax, land, foreign investment, and public sector reforms that are
needed to improve its growth prospects. For example:
* The RMI government and economic experts have recognized for several
years that the RMI tax system is complex and regressive, taxing on a
gross rather than net basis and having weak collection and
administrative capacity. Although the RMI has focused on improving tax
administration and has raised some penalties and tax levels,
legislation for income tax reform has failed and needed changes in
government import tax exemptions have not been addressed.
* In attempts to modernize a complex land tenure system, the RMI has
established land registration offices. However, such offices have
lacked a systematic method for registering parcels, instead waiting for
landowners to voluntarily initiate the process. For example, only five
parcels of land in the RMI had been, or were currently being,
registered as of June 2006. Continued uncertainties over land ownership
and land values create costly disputes, disincentives for investment,
and problems regarding the use of land as an asset.
* Economic experts and private sector representatives describe the
overall climate for foreign investment in the RMI as complex and
nontransparent. Despite attempts to streamline the process, foreign
investment regulations remain relatively burdensome, with reported
administrative delays and difficulties in obtaining permits for foreign
workers.
* The RMI government has endorsed public sector reform; however,
efforts to reduce public sector employment have generally failed, and
the government continues to conduct a wide array of commercial
enterprises that require subsidies and compete with private
enterprises. As of June 2006, the RMI had not prepared a comprehensive
policy for public sector enterprise reform.
Although the RMI development plan includes objectives for economic
reform, until August 2006--two years into the amended compact--JEMFAC
did not address the country's slow progress in implementing these
reforms.
The RMI Faces Challenges to Effectively Implementing Compact Assistance
for Its Long-Term Development Goals:
The RMI has allocated funds to priority sectors, although several
factors have hindered its use of the funds to meet long-term
development needs. Further, despite actions taken to effectively
implement compact grants, administrative challenges have limited its
ability to ensure use of the grants for its long-term goals. In
addition, although OIA has monitored early compact activities, it has
also faced capacity constraints.
The RMI allocated compact funds largely to priority sectors for 2004-
2006. The RMI allocated about 33 percent, 40 percent, and 20 percent of
funds to education, infrastructure, and health, respectively (see fig.
2). The education allocation included funding for nine new school
construction projects, initiated in October 2003 through July 2006.
However, various factors, such as land use issues and inadequate needs
assessments, have limited the government's use of compact funds to meet
long-term development needs. For example:
* Management and land use issues in Ebeye. The RMI government and
Kwajalein landowners have been disputing the management of public
entities and government use of leased land on the atoll. Such tensions
have negatively affected the construction of schools and other
community development initiatives.[Footnote 16] For example, the
government and landowners disagreed about the management of the entity
designated to use the compact funds set aside for Ebeye special needs;
consequently, about $3.3 million of the $5.8 million allocated for this
purpose had not been released for the community's benefit until after
September 2006.[Footnote 17] In addition, although the RMI has
completed some infrastructure projects where land titles were clear and
long-term leases were available, continuing uncertainty regarding land
titles may delay future projects.
* Lack of planning for declining U.S. assistance. Despite the goal of
budgetary self-reliance, the RMI lacks concrete plans for addressing
the annual decrement in compact funding, which could limit its ability
to sustain current levels of government services in the future. RMI
officials told us that they can compensate for the decrement in various
ways, such as through the yearly partial adjustment for inflation
provided for in the amended compacts or through improved tax
collection. However, the partial nature of the adjustment causes the
value of the grant to fall in real terms, independent of the decrement,
thereby reducing the government's ability to pay over time for imports,
such as energy, pharmaceutical products, and medical equipment.
Additionally, the RMI's slow progress in implementing tax reform will
limit its ability to augment tax revenues.
Figure 2: RMI Sector Grant Allocation, 2004-2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of RMI fiscal years 2004 through 2006 sector grant
agreements.
Note: Supplemental Education Grant funds, which started in 2005, are
not depicted. In cases where funds were unspent and deobligated in one
year and reobligated in a subsequent year, we included the funds only
in the year in which they were initially obligated. In 2006, the
special needs grant to Ebeye for the first time consolidated amounts
provided to Ebeye across the other sectors. In this figure, these
amounts are included in the other sector allocations for consistency.
[End of figure]
The RMI has taken steps to effectively implement compact assistance,
but administrative challenges have hindered its ability to ensure use
of the funds for its long-term development goals. The RMI established
development plans that include strategic goals and objectives for the
sectors receiving compact funds.[Footnote 18] Further, in addition to
establishing JEMFAC, the RMI designated the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
as its official contact point for compact policy and grant
implementation issues.[Footnote 19] However, data deficiencies, report
shortcomings, capacity constraints, and inadequate communication have
limited the RMI and U.S. governments' ability to consistently ensure
the effective use of grant funds to measure progress, and monitor day-
to-day activities.
* Data deficiencies. Although the RMI established performance
measurement indicators, a lack of complete and reliable data has
prevented the use of these indicators to assess progress. For example,
the RMI submitted data to JEMFAC for only 15 of the 20 required
education performance indicators in 2005, repeating the submission in
2006 without updating the data. Also, in 2005, the RMI government
reported difficulty in comparing the health ministry's 2004 and 2005
performance owing to gaps in reported data--for instance, limited data
were available in 2004 for the outer island health care system.
* Report shortcomings. The usefulness of the RMI's quarterly
performance reports has also been limited by incomplete and inaccurate
information. For example, the RMI Ministry of Health's 2005 fourth-
quarter report contained incorrect outpatient numbers for the first
three quarters, according to a hospital administrator. Additionally, we
found several errors in basic statistics in the RMI quarterly reports
for education, and RMI Ministry of Education officials and officials in
other sectors told us that they had not been given the opportunity to
review the final performance reports compiled by the statistics office
prior to submission.
* Capacity constraints. Staff and skill limitations have constrained
the RMI's ability to provide day-to-day monitoring of sector grant
operations. However, the RMI has submitted its single audits on time.
In addition, although the single audit reports for 2004 and 2005
indicated weaknesses in the RMI's financial statements and compliance
with requirements of major federal programs, the government has
developed corrective action plans to address the 2005 findings related
to such compliance.
* Lack of communication. Our interviews with U.S. and RMI department
officials, private sector representatives, NGOs, and economic experts
revealed a lack of communication and dissemination of information by
the U.S. and RMI governments on issues such as JEMFAC decisions,
departmental budgets, economic reforms, legislative decisions, and
fiscal positions of public enterprises. Such lack of information about
government activities creates uncertainty for public, private, and
community leaders, which can inhibit grant performance and improvement
of social and economic conditions.
As administrator of the amended compact grants, OIA monitored sector
grant and fiscal performance, assessed RMI compliance with compact
conditions, and took action to correct persistent shortcomings. For
example, since 2004, OIA has provided technical advice and assistance
to help the RMI improve the quality of its financial statements and
develop controls to resolve audit findings and prevent recurrences.
However, OIA has been constrained in its oversight role owing to
staffing challenges and time-consuming demands associated with early
compact implementation challenges in the FSM.
RMI Trust Fund May Not Provide Sustainable Income After Compact Grants
End:
Market volatility and choice of investment strategy could lead to a
wide range of RMI trust fund balances in 2023 (see app. III) and
potentially prevent trust fund disbursements in some years. Although
the RMI has supplemented its trust fund balance with additional
contributions, other sources of income are uncertain or entail risks.
Furthermore, the RMI's trust fund committee has faced challenges in
effectively managing the fund's investment.
Market volatility and investment strategy could have a considerable
impact on projected trust fund balances in 2023. Our analysis indicates
that, under various scenarios, the RMI's trust fund could fall short of
the maximum allowed disbursement level[Footnote 20]--an amount equal to
the inflation-adjusted compact grants in 2023--after compact grants
end, with the probability of shortfalls increasing over time (see fig.
3).[Footnote 21] For example, under a moderate investment strategy, the
fund's income is only around 10 percent likely to fall short of the
maximum distribution by 2031. However, this probability rises to almost
40 percent by 2050. Additionally, our analysis indicates a positive
probability that the fund will yield no disbursement in some years;
under a moderate investment strategy the probability is around 10
percent by 2050. Despite the impact of market volatility and investment
strategy, the trust fund committee's reports have not yet assessed the
fund's potential adequacy for meeting the RMI's long-term economic
goals.
Figure 3: Probability of RMI Trust Fund Income Not Reaching the Maximum
Disbursement Allowed, Fiscal Years 2024-2050:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
Notes: Our analysis of the RMI's trust fund includes Taiwan's
contribution. The chart depicts results from 1,000 trial runs. The
change from one year to the next may not always be monotonic, but the
general time trend is clear. As the number of trial runs increase, the
time trend becomes smoother.
[End of figure]
RMI trust fund income could be supplemented from several sources,
although this potential is uncertain. For example, the RMI received a
commitment from Taiwan to contribute $40 million over 20 years to the
RMI trust fund, which improved the RMI fund's likely capacity for
disbursements after 2023. However, the RMI's limited development
prospects constrain its ability to raise tax revenues to supplement the
fund's income. Securitization--issuing bonds against future U.S.
contributions--could increase the fund's earning potential by raising
its balances through bond sales. However, securitization could also
lead to lower balances and reduced fund income if interest owed on the
bonds exceeds investment returns.[Footnote 22]
The RMI trust fund committee has experienced management challenges in
establishing the trust fund to maximize earnings. Contributions to the
trust fund were initially placed in a low-interest savings account and
were not invested until 16 months after the initial
contribution.[Footnote 23] As of June 2007, the RMI trust fund
committee had not appointed an independent auditor or a money manager
to invest the fund according to the proposed investment strategy. U.S.
government officials suggested that contractual delays and committee
processes for reaching consensus and obtaining administrative support
contributed to the time taken to establish and invest funds. As of May
2007, the committee had not yet taken steps to improve these processes.
Conclusions:
Since enactment of the amended compacts, the U.S. and RMI governments
have made efforts to meet new requirements for implementation,
performance measurement, and oversight. However, the RMI faces
significant challenges in working toward the compact goals of economic
advancement and budgetary self-reliance as the compact grants decrease.
Largely dependent on government spending of foreign aid, the RMI has
limited potential for private sector growth, and its government has
made little progress in implementing reforms needed to increase
investment opportunities and tax income. In addition, JEMFAC did not
address the pace of reform during the first 2 years of compact
implementation. Further, both the U.S. and RMI governments have faced
significant capacity constraints in ensuring effective implementation
of grant funding. The RMI government and JEMFAC have also shown limited
commitment to strategically planning for the long-term, effective use
of grant assistance or for the budgetary pressure the government will
face as compact grants decline. Because the trust fund's earnings are
intended as a main source of U.S. assistance to the RMI after compact
grants end, the fund's potential inadequacy to provide sustainable
income in some years could impact the RMI's ability to provide
government services. However, the RMI trust fund committee has not
assessed the potential status of the fund as an ongoing source of
revenue after compact grants end in 2023.
Prior Recommendations:
Our prior reports on the amended compacts[Footnote 24] include
recommendations that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Insular Affairs, as chair of the RMI management
and trust fund committees, to, among other things,
* ensure that JEMFAC address the lack of RMI progress in implementing
reforms to increase investment and tax income;
* coordinate with other U.S. agencies on JEMFAC to work with the the
RMI to establish plans to minimize the impact of declining assistance;
* coordinate with other U.S. agencies on JEMFAC to work with the RMI to
fully develop a reliable mechanism for measuring progress toward
compact goals; and:
* ensure the RMI trust fund committee's assessment and timely reporting
of the fund's likely status as a source of revenue after 2023.
Interior generally concurred with our recommendations and has taken
actions in response to several of them. For example, in August 2006,
JEMFAC discussed the RMI's slow progress in implementing economic
reforms. Additionally, the trust fund committee decided in June 2007 to
create a position for handling the administrative duties of the fund.
Regarding planning for declining assistance and measuring progress
toward compact goals, JEMFAC has not held an annual meeting since the
December 2006 publication of the report containing those
recommendations.[Footnote 25]
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this completes my
prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you
may have at this time.
Contacts and Acknowledgements:
For future contacts regarding this testimony, please call David
Gootnick at (202) 512-3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony included Emil Friberg, Jr., Ming Chen,
Tracy Guerrero, Julie Hirshen, Leslie Holen, Reid Lowe, Mary Moutsos,
Kendall Schaefer, and Eddie Uyekawa.
[End of section]
Appendix I: U.S. Assistance to Be Provided to the FSM and the RMI under
the Amended Compacts, 2004-2023:
(Dollars in millions).
2004;
FSM grants (Section 211): $76.2;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): $16.0;
RMI grants (Section 211): $35.2;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): $7.0;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: $15.0.
2005;
FSM grants (Section 211): 76.2;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 16.0;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 34.7;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 7.5;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 15.0.
2006;
FSM grants (Section 211): 76.2;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 16.0;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 34.2;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 8.0;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 15.0.
2007;
FSM grants (Section 211): 75.4;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 16.8;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 33.7;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 8.5;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 15.0.
2008;
FSM grants (Section 211): 74.6;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 17.6;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 33.2;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 9.0;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 15.0.
2009;
FSM grants (Section 211): 73.8;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 18.4;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 32.7;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 9.5;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 15.0.
2010;
FSM grants (Section 211): 73.0;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 19.2;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 32.2;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 10.0;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 15.0.
2011;
FSM grants (Section 211): 72.2;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 20.0;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 31.7;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 10.5;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 15.0.
2012;
FSM grants (Section 211): 71.4;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 20.8;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 31.2;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 11.0;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 15.0.
2013;
FSM grants (Section 211): 70.6;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 21.6;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 30.7;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 11.5;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 15.0.
2014;
FSM grants (Section 211): 69.8;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 22.4;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 32.2;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 12.0;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 18.0.
2015;
FSM grants (Section 211): 69.0;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 23.2;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 31.7;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 12.5;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 18.0.
2016;
FSM grants (Section 211): 68.2;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 24.0;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 31.2;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 13.0;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 18.0.
2017;
FSM grants (Section 211): 67.4;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 24.8;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 30.7;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 13.5;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 18.0.
2018;
FSM grants (Section 211): 66.6;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 25.6;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 30.2;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 14.0;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 18.0.
2019;
FSM grants (Section 211): 65.8;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 26.4;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 29.7;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 14.5;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 18.0.
2020;
FSM grants (Section 211): 65.0;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 27.2;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 29.2;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 15.0;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 18.0.
2021;
FSM grants (Section 211): 64.2;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 28.0;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 28.7;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 15.5;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 18.0.
2022;
FSM grants (Section 211): 63.4;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 28.8;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 28.2;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 16.0;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 18.0.
2023;
FSM grants (Section 211): 62.6;
FSM trust fund: (Section 215): 29.6;
RMI grants: (Section 211): 27.7;
RMI trust fund: (Section 216): 16.5;
Kwajalein Impact: (Section 212)a: 18.0.
Source: Pub. L. No. 108-188.
Notes:
For both the FSM and the RMI, annual grant amounts include $200,000 to
be provided directly by the Secretary of the Interior to the Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, for disaster
and emergency assistance purposes. The grant amounts do not include the
annual audit grant, capped at $500,000, that will be provided to both
countries.
These dollar amounts shall be adjusted each fiscal year for inflation
by the percentage that equals two-thirds of the percentage change in
the U.S. gross domestic product implicit price deflator, or 5 percent,
whichever is less in any one year, using the beginning of 2004 as a
base. Grant funding can be fully adjusted for inflation after 2014,
under certain U.S. inflation conditions.
[A] "Kwajalein Impact" funding is provided to the RMI government, which
in turn compensates Kwajalein Atoll landowners for U.S. access to the
atoll for military purposes.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Amended Compact Implementation Framework:
Figure: Amended Compact Implementation Framework:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Pub. L. No. 108-188 and the subsidiary fiscal procedures
agreements.
Note: This figure does not list all of the compact or fiscal procedures
agreements requirements:
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Projections of RMI Account Balance with Three Possible
Investment Strategies:
Figure: Projections of RMI Account Balance with Three Possible
Investment Strategies:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] In this testimony, all annual references refer to the fiscal year
rather than the calendar year.
[2] In 2000, we reviewed assistance under the compact and determined
that the U.S. and RMI governments had provided limited accountability
over spending and that U.S. assistance had resulted in little impact on
economic development in the RMI. See GAO, Foreign Assistance: U.S.
funds to Two Micronesian Nations Had Little Impact on Economic
Development, GAO/NSIAD-00-216 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2000).
[3] This figure is based on a Department of Interior projection as of
July, 2007.
[4] GAO, Compact of Free Association: An Assessment of the Amended
Compacts and Related Agreements, GAO-03-988T (Washington, D.C.: June
18, 2003), testimony before the Committee on Resources, House of
Representatives.
[5] The amended compacts' implementing legislation instructs GAO to
report 3 years following the enactment of the legislation and every 5
years thereafter on the RMI's use and effectiveness of U.S. financial,
program, and technical assistance as well as the effectiveness of
administrative oversight by the United States. See GAO, Compacts of
Free Association: Implementation of New Funding and Accountability
Requirements is Well Under Way, but Planning Challenges Remain,
GAO-05-633 (Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2005); GAO, Compacts of Free
Association: Development Prospects Remain Limited for the Micronesia
and the Marshall Islands, GAO-06-590 (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2006);
GAO, Compacts of Free Association: Micronesia and the Marshall Islands
Face Challenges in Planning for Sustainability, Measuring Progress, and
Ensuring Accountability, GAO-07-163 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2006);
GAO, Compacts of Free Association: Trust Funds for Micronesia and the
Marshall Islands May Not Provide Sustainable Income, GAO-07-513
(Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2007); and GAO, Compact of Free
Association: Micronesia and the Marshall Island's Use of Sector Grants,
GAO-07-514R (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2007).
[6] Kwajalein Atoll is the RMI's second most populated atoll, where
many residents were displaced to provide space for U.S. missile
testing. Many of these residents now reside on Ebeye Island.
[7] This estimate is based on Interior data and represents total
nominal outlays. It does not include payments for compact-authorized
federal services or U.S. military use of Kwajalein Atoll land, nor does
it include investment development funds provided under section 111 of
Public Law 99-239.
[8] Estimated FSM per capita GDP, in fiscal year 2003 U.S. dollars, was
$2,151 in 2003 compared with an average of $2,093 from 1990 to 1995.
Estimated RMI per capita GDP, in fiscal year 2003 U.S. dollars, was
$2,247 in 2003 compared with an average of $2,336 from 1990 to 1995.
[9] GAO/NSIAD-00-216.
[10] The RMI and FSM amended compacts went into effect on May 1, 2004,
and June 25, 2004, respectively. The $1.5 billion in assistance to the
RMI includes (1) compact grants; (2) trust fund contributions; (3)
lease payments; and (5) inflation adjustments.
[11] The RMI compact requires its infrastructure grant to be 30 to 50
percent of its total annual sector grants. Additionally, the RMI must
target grant funding to Ebeye and other Marshallese communities within
Kwajalein Atoll.
[12] U.S. contributions to trust funds were conditioned on the FSM and
the RMI making their own required contribution. The RMI made its
required initial contribution of $30 million to its trust fund on June
1, 2004.
[13] Employment in the RMI fishing industry grew from 2000 to 2004 with
the opening of a tuna processing plant. The commercial viability of
this plant was never established, however, and the RMI lost around 600
private sector jobs when the plant closed in 2005. Recent foreign
investment in a new tuna processing plant is projected to return
employment levels to those when the original plant closed.
[14] See GAO-06-590. However, a preliminary survey of RMI emigrants in
Springdale, Arkansas suggests that the emigrant population there has
higher education levels and lower poverty levels relative to the
emigrant population in Hawaii, Guam, and the CNMI.
[15] For example, the Asian Development Bank has recently assisted the
RMI in holding "Dialogue for Action" retreats that enable public and
private sector representatives to develop a common vision for
sustainable development through economic reform.
[16] In addition to these examples, land issues remain an issue for
U.S. access to Kwajalein Atoll through the defense provisions of the
amended compact. The RMI government is bound by an agreement with the
U.S. government that allows for U.S. access to Kwajalein Atoll until
2086. To date, the RMI government has not reached an agreement with
Kwajalein Atoll landowners (who own the land under use by the U.S.
government) that allows for this long-term access.
[17] The funds were supposed to be allocated to the Kwajalein Atoll
Development Authority, which experienced problems in effectively and
efficiently using funds in the past. In early 2005, RMI legislation
stipulated the authority's restructuring; however, the law was
subsequently repealed by the RMI government. Kwajalein landowners are
challenging this decision in court.
[18] The RMI's development plan consists of three documents: Vision
2018, Meto 2000, and the Medium Term Budget and Investment Framework.
In addition, the annual portfolio submissions include strategic goals
and indicators for each of the sectors. We refer collectively to all of
these RMI documents as "the development plan."
[19] Prior to designating the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a compact
implementation unit, the RMI had identified the Office of the Chief
Secretary as the official point of contact for all communication and
correspondence with the U.S. government concerning compact sector grant
assistance. The RMI's Economic Policy, Planning, and Statistics Office
also works with the ministries receiving grants to prepare the annual
budget proposals, quarterly reports, and annual monitoring and
evaluation reports.
[20] The trust fund agreements specify that in 2024 and thereafter, the
RMI trust fund committee may disburse amounts up to the annual grant
assistance in 2023, fully adjusted for inflation, provided that funds
are available in the B account to reach such a level.
[21] Our methodology for projecting trust fund income is base on a
technique known as Monte Carlo simulation. We built a Monte Carlo
simulation model--based on the trust fund agreements, contributions to
date, and historical returns of the market--to project the trust funds'
likely income levels given market volatility as well as historical
returns of various asset classes, including large company stocks,
treasury bills, and international stocks from 1970 to 2005. See
GAO-07-513.
[22] According to Interior officials, the trust fund committees are
reviewing this option but have not initiated an independent study to
objectively evaluate its potential risks.
[23] For the months before the investment of the RMI trust fund's
approximately $49 million in October 2005, the fund earned a return of
approximately 3 percent, compared with a stock market return of about 4
percent. Given the small difference in returns, as well as the fees
that the fund would have paid if invested in the stock market, we
estimate that this delay reduced the fund's earnings by approximately
$51,000.
[24] GAO-05-633, GAO-06-590, GAO-07-163, GAO-07-513, GAO-07-514R.
[25] GAO-07-163, p. 50.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, Beckers@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
