ANEXO II
CONTRATO DE INTERCAMBIO DE DEUDA PUBLICA
POR CONVERSIÓN CALIFICADA
QUE SE CELEBRA EL 30 DE ENERO DE 1997, ENTRE NACIONAL
FINANCIERA, S.N.C. (EL "ADQUIRENTE"), LA SECRETARIA DE HACIENDA Y
CREDITO PUBLICO (EL "AGENTE PAGADOR"), CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL
MEXICO,A.C. (EL "INVERSIONISTA"),Y SIGNET BANK (EL "BANCO/TENEDOR").
CONSIDERANDO:
1. Que el Adquirente tiene conocimiento
del contenido de los Convenios del Paquete Financiero para
México
1989-1992 y bajo los cuales por la firma del presente
podrán intercambiarse bonos en la fecha
determinada para tal efecto y de acuerdo a las condiciones
aquí contenidas.
2. Que el Gobierno Mexicano
has establecido el Programa de
Intercambio de Deuda
Pública para apoyar Proyectos
Educativos, Ecológicos, Agropecuarios y de Asistencia
Social, y ha publicado las Reglas para autorizaciones en 1995 que
regirán al mismo, y que ambas constituyen, junto con la
Ley
Orgánica de la Administración
Pública Federal, la Ley General de Deuda
Pública, el Presupuesto de
Egresos de la Federación para 1995, el Reglamento Interior
de la Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito
Público, la Ley Organica de Nacional Financiera, S.N.C., y
los acuerdos tomados en las reuniones del Comité
Técnico Intersecretarial del Programa de Intercambio de
Deuda Pública para apoyar Proyectos Educativos,
Ecológicos, Agropecuarios y de Asistencia Social, el
fundamento jurídico de todas las autorizaciones,
incluyendo el acuerdo del Comité Técnico
Intersecretarial, por medio del cual se autorizó al Agente
Pagador para autorizar de manera especial a instituciones
con fines non lucrativos, operaciones de
intercambio de deuda por Conversión Calificada, con
fundamento en las nuevas reglas enviadas el 26 de junio de
1995.
3. Que el Inversionista desea participar en el Programa
de Intercambio de Deuda Pública para apoyar Proyectos
Educativos, Ecológicos, Agropecuarios y de Asistencia
Social, con el fin de intercambiar Bonos con la
intermediación del Banco/Tenedor, por Conversión
Calificada (Qualified Consideration), en favor del
inversionista.
4. Que el Banco/Tenedor está de acuerdo en que el
Inversionista lleve a cabo algún tipo de Conversión
Calificada (Qualified Consideration).
5. Que el Banco/Tenedor y el Inversionista han recibido
todas las autorizaciones necesarias
para el intercambio de los Bonos y para la
realización del Proyecto
Específico, respectivamente.
6. Que las partes del presente han manifestado conocer
el contenido del Programa de Intercambio de Deuda Pública
para apoyar Proyectos educativos, Ecológicos,
Agropecuarios y de Asistencia Social, así como las
estipulaciones relativas del Paquete Financiero, y que por ese
motivo los términos, las condiciones y los plazos
ahí fijados son de su absoluto conocimiento.
Por lo anterior, las partes convienen al tenor de las
siguientes disposiciones y cláusulas:
I. DEFINICIONES
A menos que se establezca de otra manera en el presente,
los términos que aparezcan en mayúscula definidos
en los Convenios del Paquete Financiero y a los que se hace
referencia más adelante, se usarán en este Convenio
tal como se definen en los mismos.
Asimismo, los términos que aparecen a
continuación tendrán el siguiente significado.
"Agente Fiscal" o
"Agente de Cierre" cuando así proceda significa
Citybank,N.A., tal y como se define en el Convenio de Intercambio
de Bonos a Descuento y a la Par.
"Agente Pagador" significa la Secretaría de
Hacienda y Crédito Público, actuando en su
capacidad de Agente Pagador de Nacional Financiera,
S.N.C.
"Autorizaciones del Gobierno Mexicano" significan las
aprobaciones necesarias para llevar a cabo las transacciones
previstas bajo este Convenio, expedidas por la Secretaría
de Hacienda y Crédito Público mediante Oficio No.
305.1.3240 del 13 de septiembre de 1996, que se adjunta al
presente como Anexo "A", y que no estará sujeto a
variación en sus términos y condiciones, salvo que
la misma entidad que autorizó inicialmente determine lo
contrario mediante la expedición del oficio modificatorio
correspondiente.
"Aviso de Intercambio" (Exchange Notice) significa el
documento a ser firmado por separado por el Banco/Tenedor y el
Adquirente, bajo los Términos de la Cláusula 5 y
adjunto al presente como Anexo "B".
"Bonos" significa Bonos a Descuento (Discount Bonds) y/o
Bonos a la Par (Par bonds).
"Cedel" significa Centrale de Livrasion de Valeurs
Mobiliéres, S.A.
"Certificado de Conversión Calificada" significa
el documento expedido por el Adquirente, el cual otorga a su
titular el derecho a desembolsar el Depósito para realizar
el Proyecto Específico.
"Conversión Calificada" (Qualified Consideration)
significa lo establecido en la Parte 4 (C) de los Términos
y Condiciones de los Bonos.
"Depósito" significa para cada Fecha de
Intercambio, la transferencia de fondos a la cuenta que el
inversionista mantiene a nombre de Conservation International
México,A.C., de conformidad con lo establecido en la
Cláusula Primera Inciso (b) del presente, y a su vez, los
rendimientos de dichos fondos que formarán parte del
capital que se
aplicará para financiar el Proyecto
Específico.
"Día Hábil" significa un día
distinto del sábado, domingo u otros días en que
los bancos
estén autorizados u obligados a cerrar, tanto en la Ciudad
de México como en Nueva York, N.Y.
"Euroclear" significa Euro-clear Clearance
System.
"Fecha de Intercambio" significa cada fecha en la que se
lleve a cabo un intercambio de Bonos por Conversión
Calificada la cual será determinada por el Agente Pagador
y notificada conjuntamente por el Adquirente y por el
Banco/Tenedor a Cedel, Euroclear o el Agente Fiscal, según
corresponda, mediante un Aviso de Intercambio, en las condiciones
especificadas en la Cláusula Primera y Quinta del
presente, previo cumplimiento de las condiciones establecidas en
la Cláusula Segunda. El intercambio tendrá lugar en
la Tesorería de la Federación, Ciudad de
México, pudiendo las partes fijar otro lugar de
común acuerdo.
"Moneda de los Bonos" significa la divisa (o divisas) en
la cual están denominados los Bonos en la Fecha de
Intercambio.
"Monto de Bonos Autorizado" significa E.U.A.
$2,000,000.00 (Dos Millónes de Dólares de los
Estados Unidos
de América) valor nominal,
de Bonos a Descuento y/o a la Par. Estos Bonos serán
objeto de intercambio de conformidad con el presente contrato.
"Monto de Pago en Dólares" significa la cantidad
especificada como tal en un aviso enviado por el Banco/Tenedor al
Inversionista y que será pagada al Banco/Tenedor de
acuerdo con las disposiciones pactadas entre éste y el
Inversionista.
"Monto de Pago en Pesos" significa que el gobierno de
México a través de la Secretaría de Hacienda
y Crédito Publico pagará los bonos de su deuda, ya
sean en bonos de descuento o bonos a la par a un precio de
canje no mayor a 20 puntos porcentuales sobre el precio de los
bonos comprados por el beneficiario del SWAP. Para ello se
requerirá de la comprobación del precio de
compra.
"Obligaciones
de Pago bajo la Legislación Mexicana", significan aquellas
comisiones, derechos e impuestos
contemplados en la Ley Federal de Derechos y en su caso, la Ley
del Impuesto sobre la
Renta y que deben ser pagados en los términos de
dichos ordenamientos por el Banco/Tenedor, y el Inversionista,
tomando en cuenta lo establecido en la Cláusula Segunda
Inciso (h) del presente.
"Paquete Financiero" (1989-1992 Financing Package for
Mexico) significan, conjuntá o separadamente, los
siguientes documentos: (1)
el Convenio de Intercambio de Bonos a Descuento y a la Par
(Discount and Par Bond Exchange Agreement) así como los
Documentos de Bono (Bond Documents) definidos en el mismo
Convenio; (2) el Convenio de Représtamo y Comercio Exterior
(Onlending and Trade Credit Facility Agreement); (3) el Convenio
de Subscripción de Bonos de Dinero Nuevo y
los Documentos de Bono (New Money Bond Subscription Agreement;
(4) el Convenio de Crédito 1989-1992 (1989- 1992 Credit
Agreement); (5) los Convenios Combinados de
Reestructuración Multi-Anual (Combined MYRAS); (6) el
Convenio Combinado del Antiguo Dinero Nuevo (Combined Old New
Money Agreement and Bond Documents); (7) el Convenio de la
Facilidades 2 y 3 Combinadas (Combined Facilities 2 and 3
Agreement); y (8) la Enmienda de 1990 (1990 Amendment), todos
ellos fechados y suscritos el 4 de febrero de 1990, por los
Estados Unidos Mexicanos, los obligados del Sector
Público Mexicano y la Comunidad
Bancaria Internacional, en el entendido de que dichos Convenios
pueden ser enmendados, modificados o adicionados cuando
así se requiera bajo las condiciones fijadas en los
mismos. "Período de Intercambio" significa de la fecha de
firma del presente hasta enero de 1998 en la cual se
llevará a cabo el último intercambio de Bonos para
constituir el Depósito y financiar el Proyecto
Específico.
"Proyecto Específico" significa las inversiones
autorizadas por la Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito
Público bajo las Autorizaciones del Gobierno Mexicano. La
Cláusula Cuarta del presente Convenio contiene una
explicación global de la inversión a realizarse, misma que se
expresa de manera detallada en el Anexo "C" del
presente.
"Valor Equivalente en Dólares E.U.A." significa
el valor en dólares americanos equivalente al Monto de
Pago en Pesos en cada Fecha de Intercambio, y que se
tomará como referencia en cada disposición contra
el Depósito, el tipo de cambio
será el que determine para dicho efecto la
Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito
Público.
II. CLAUSULAS
PRIMERA. Disposiciones Generales para la Fecha de
Intercambio.
(a) Sujeto a los términos y condiciones del
presente, el Banco/Tenedor, en base al acuerdo que por separado
suscriba con el Inversionista, conviene en transmitir a
éste los derechos derivados de los Bonos a ser
intercambiados en cada Fecha de Intercambio. El Banco/Tenedor
conviene, por cuenta del Inversionista, en transmitir los Bonos
al Adquirente, simultáneamente a la entrega por parte del
Agente Pagador del Monto de Pago en Pesos en favor del
Inversionista en cada Fecha de Intercambio, en su caso, que
formalice la Conversión Calificada (Qualified
Consideration) objeto del presente Convenio. Para efectos de la
Fecha de Intercambio, el Banco/Tenedor y el Adquirente por
separado enviarán el Aviso de Intercambio en el plazo y
con las especificaciones previstas en la Cláusula Quinta
del presente.
(b) Mediante la presentación por parte del
Banco/Tenedor del Aviso de Intercambio, el Adquirente, si no
existiere inconveniente y previa revisión de los
Documentos del Bono presentados con oportunidad por el
Banco/Tenedor, enviará simultáneamente con
éste el citado Aviso de Intercambio a Cedel, Euroclear o
el Agente Fiscal, según corresponda, y acuerda pagar por
medio del Agente Pagador al titular del Certificado de
Conversión Calificada el Monto de Pago en Pesos en la
Fecha de Intercambio.Tratándose de intercambio de Bonos
emitidos en forma definitiva deberán presentarse al
Adquirente, el original del Bono junto con la documentación que solicite el Agente
Pagador. El Agente Pagador efectuará dicho pago para
constituir el Depósito con fecha valor del mismo
día, o por cualquier otro medio convenido por el Agente
Pagador y el Inversionista. El Depósito será
respaldado por un recibo oficial entregado por la
Tesorería de la Federación que especificara el
Monto del Pago en Pesos y su Valor Equivalente en Dólares
E.U.A. El inversionista podrá hacer disposiciones de dicho
Depósito de conformidad con el programmea de desembolsos
conteniendo en el Anexo "C-1" que detalla la inversión a
realizarse en el Proyecto Específico.
(c) Al recibo del Monto de Pago en Pesos el
Inversionista tendrá la obligación de iniciar el
Proyecto Especifico y por lo tanto de llevar a cabo la
Conversión Calificada.
(d) Una vez llevado a cabo el intercambio de Bonos por
Conversión Calificada, el Banco/Tenedor conviene en que
todos los derechos derivados de los Bonos intercambiados por
Conversión Calificada en la Fecha de Intercambio al
amparo del
presente, habrán sido transmitidos al Adquirente.Asimismo,
el Inversionista conviene en que toda responsabilidad del Banco/Tenedor con respecto a
la participación en dichos Bonos se entenderá
extinguida con excepción de cualquier obligación a
su cargo que pudiera derivarse posteriormente como consecuencia
de la firma del presente Convenio.
El Agente Pagador verificará que el tipo de
Conversión Calificada llevada a cabo por el
Inversionista cumpla con los requisitos fijados para la
misma en el Convenio de Intercambio de Bonos a Descuento y a la
Par y que los bonos a ser intercambiados hayan sido depositados
en la cuenta que el Adquirente lleva con Cedel.
SEGUNDA. Condiciones Precedentes a la Fecha de
Intercambio. Con el fin de llevar a cabo el o los intercambios
previstos para la realización del Proyecto
Específico, las partes del presente estarán sujetas
al cumplimiento de las siguientes condiciones:
(a) Este Convenio habrá sido debidamente aprobado
y suscrito por cada una de las partes firmantes, quienes han
acreditado debidamente su capacidad legal.
(b) Todas las Autorizaciones del Gobierno Mexicano para
la ejecución de este Convenio habrán sido obtenidas
y estarán en vigor y con plena efectividad. Las
obligaciones establecidas en cada una de las Autorizaciones
mencionadas, que deban ser cumplidas con anterioridad a cada
Fecha de Intercambio, serán llevadas a cabo con estricto
apego a lo señalado en los oficios respectivos, debiendo
los interesados comprobar fehacientemente el cumplimiento de las
mismas.
(c) El Inversionista conviene en que la
Conversión Calificada a realizarse en cada Fecha de
Intercambio, deberá tener la calidad que le
confiere el Paquete Financiero, así como cumplir con los
lineamientos del Proyecto Específico.
(d) El Inversionista habrá entregado al Agente
Pagador para su aprobación.
(e) El Inversionista habrá manifestado su acuerdo
a los términos y condiciones del Aviso de Intercambio
correspondiente.
(f) El Agente Pagador habrá recibido por lo menos
10 días naturales anteriores a la Fecha de Intercambio, el
Aviso de Intercambio enviado por el Adquirente y el Banco/Tenedor
a Cedel, Euroclear o el Agente Fiscal, según
corresponda.Tratándose de bonos definitivos, el Adquirente
deberá haber recibido el original de los bonos y la
documentación correspondiente.
(g) El Banco/Tenedor habrá manifestado que es el
poseedor único y legítimo de los bonos que
serán intercambiados al amparo del presente, mediante el
Anexo "D", que lo acreditada como tal, de acuerdo al Paquete
financiero.
(h) En caso de existir alguna obligación por
parte del Banco/Tenedor y el Inversionista, relativo a las
comisiones, derechos y tratamiento fiscal derivados de la
utilización del Programa de Intercambio de Deuda
Pública para apoyar Proyectos Educativos,
Ecológicos, Agropecuarios y de Asistencia Social, las
partes citadas manifiestan, por el acto de suscribir este
Convenio, haber cumplido con dichas obligaciones, adjuntando al
presente la evidencia de los pagos correspondientes mediante el
Anexo "E". Si debido a que el ordenamiento legal que determina la
obligación de pago pudiera rebasar al de la fecha de firma
del presente Convenio, la parte obligada a dicho pago o el
responsable solidario, en su caso, asumen toda la responsabilidad
de enterarlo en la cantidad y el plazo previstos por la ley de la
materia,
así como de entregar al Agente Pagador copia del
comprobante de pago respectivo, inmediatamente después de
que se haga exigible la obligación.
Para los efectos del presente inciso y de acuerdo al
Punto 14 de las Reglas para la Subasta de Derechos bajo el
programa de Intercambio de Deuda Pública para apoyar
Proyectos Educativos, Ecológicos, Agropecuarios y de
Asistencia Social, se consideran obligaciones de Pago: (1)El 2.5
al millar de la deuda convertible, en los términos de los
artículos 53 D y/o 72 Fracción IX de la Ley Federal
de Derechos; el inversionista manifiesta haber realizado el pago
del 2.5 al millar a que se refiere este párrafo
con anterioridad a la firma de este instrumento y (2) En su caso,
el pago del impuesto con
fundamento en el Articulo 151-A de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la
Renta, por concepto de
ganancia de capital derivada del Intercambio (o Intercambios)
objeto del presente Convenio. La enumeración anterior se
hace sin perjuicio de la aplicación de cualquier otro pago
que por disposición legal o administrativa deba hacerse
con cargo a las partes citadas en este inciso.
TERCERA. Causas de Rescisión del presente
Convenio. Los derechos y obligaciones de las partes se
darán por terminados cuando se presente alguno de los
siguientes casos: (1) por acuerdo de las partes establecido por
escrito; (2) por vencimiento del Periodo de intercambio; (3) por
notificación unilateral y por escrito de cualquiera de las
partes en donde se asiente la decisión fundamentada y
justificada a juicio del Agente Pagador, de no continuar con la
transacción objeto del presente, haciéndose
responsable la parte interesada de todas las consecuencias
legales y costos derivados
de su decisión; (4) por encubrimiento, mala fe o falsedad
de alguna de las partes en los actos o documentos relacionados
con el presente, y que constituyan, a criterio del Agente
Pagador, una causa relevante para dejar sin efectos todas o parte
de las disposiciones de este Convenio. El gobierno Federal se
reserva la facultad de cancelar el programa cuando lo considere
pertinente o bien cuando se hayan cumplido los objetivos de
su instrumentación.
CUARTA. Proyecto Específico; Objeto de la
Inversión. El Monto de Pago en Pesos recibido por el
inversionista en los términos y condiciones fijados por el
presente, serán utilizados de manera estricta y
obligatoria para los programas
aprobados de Conservation International Mexico,A.C., tal y como
se especifica en forma detallada en el Anexo "C". El programa de
desembolsos que se efectuará constituye una
obligación y un compromiso irrevocables por parte del
Inversionista, quien tendrá que solicitar por escrito al
Agente pagador cualquier propuesta para variar las cifras y las
fechas contempladas en el Anexo "C-1" del presente Convenio. En
este caso, el escrito deberá contener los cambios
solicitados así como los motivos de carácter
financiero y/o legal que los han propiciado. El anexo "C-1" del
presente seguirá teniendo total vigencia y efectividad
mientras el Agente Pagador no emita un oficio aprobatorio sobre
un nuevo programa de desembolsos, el cual, contando ya con la
autorización correspondiente, será presentado
formalmente por el Inversionista para substituir el vigente hasta
ese momento. Los desembolsos que se hagan contra el
Depósito para el desarollo del Proyecto Específico
serán previamente autorizados por el Agente Pagador, para
lo cual éste y la Tesorería de la Federación
establecerán el mecanismo de desembolso que estimen
adecuado para garantizar la correcta y oportuna
utilización de los recursos.
QUINTA. Aviso de Intercambio. El Banco/Tenedor y
el Adquirente notificarán por escrito a Cedel, Euroclear,
o el Agente Fiscal, según corresponda, por lo menos 10
(diez) días naturales anteriores a la Fecha de
Intercambio, sobre el detalle de los Bonos a ser intercambiados
por Conversión Calificada, así como todas las
especificaciones requeridas en el citado Aviso de intercambio,
cuyo formato se incluye en el presente Anexo "B".
SEXTA. Devolución de Pagos en Exceso. El
Banco/Tenedor estará obligado a devolver los montos
pagados en exceso por cualquier motivo, incluyendo los intereses
que por error pudiera recibir en el futuro por parte del Agente
Fiscal cuando éste actúe por cuenta del Agente
Pagador, una vez recomprado el monto de principal de los Bonos de
conformidad con el presente convenio. La obligación
anterior consistirá, en todos los casos, en la
devolución inmediata de los montos recibidos en exceso y
estableciéndose un costo financiero
a cargo del BancoTenedor por cada día transcurrido, que
será determinado por el Agente Pagador tomando en cuenta
las tasas de mercado vigentes
en el momento de surgir la obligación. El reembolso en
favor del Agente Pagador se efectuará con el monto, lugar
y forma que éste fija para tal efecto.
SÉPTIMA. Riesgo Cambiario.
Cada una de las partes declara que ha tomado su propia
decisión para celebrar el presente Convenio, con los
consecuentes derechos y obligaciones que de ello se derivan. El
agente Pagador y el Inversionista, correrán con el riesgo
cambiario derivado del Depósito (o los Depósitos) a
constituirse en la Tesorería de la Federación, y de
manera especial con el Valor Equivalente en Dólares
E.U.A.
OCTAVA. Gastos y Costos. A menos que se
establezca de otra manera en el presente Convenio o en un
documento por separado suscrito por todas las partes, los
gastos y
costos incurridos en relación con este Convenio
serán sufragados por la parte que incurra en dichos gastos
y costos. En el entendido de que dichos gastos y costos
deberán ser razonables y documentados.
NOVENA. Enmiendas. Cualquier disposición
del presente Convenio podrá ser modificada o derogada si
en cualquiera de los casos la correspondiente enmienda se
efectúa por escrito y es firmada por todas las
partes.
DECIMA. Cesiones. Las partes no podrán
ceder o transferir total o parcialmente, sus derechos y
obligaciones bajo este Convenio, a menos que la cesión o
transferencia se documente por escrito mediante la
celebración de un convenio firmado por todas las partes
del presente.
DECIMA PRIMERA. Notificaciones. Todos los avisos
y comunicaciones
a ser enviados e conformidad con este Convenio, y salvo
especificación en contrario, se efectuarán por
escrito mediante télex, telegrama, telefax, cable, correo
o en propia mano, entregados a cada una de las partes en los
domicilios que aparecen a continuación:
Dirección del Adquirente: Dirección del Agente Pagador:
NACIONAL FINANCIERA, S.N.C. SECRETARIA DE HACIENDA Y
CREDITO PUBLI CO
Insurgentes Sur Núm. 1971 Insurgentes Sur 826
1er. Piso
Torre Norte – Piso 6 Col. del Valle
01020 México,D.F. México,D.F.
03100
Dirección del Inversionista: Dirrección
del Banco/Tenedor
Conservation International Mexico,A. C.
Camino Al Ajusco No 124-1er. Piso
Fraccionamiento Jardines en la Montana
C.P. 14210, México,D.F.
DECIMA SEGUNDA. Ley Aplicable. Este Convenio se
regirá y será interpretado de conformidad con las
leyes de los
Estados Unidos Mexicanos. No obstante lo anterior, las
disposiciones del Paquete Financiero que sean aplicables al
presente tendrán toda la fuerza legal
que el derecho mexicano les confiere.
DECIMA TERCERA. Jurisdicción. Las partes
del presente se someten a la jurisdicción de los
tribunales del Distrito Federal en México, para promover
cualquier proceso legal
o juicio relacionados con controversias surgidas de la firma e
instrumentación del presente. En consecuencia, cada una de
las partes renuncia de manera irrevocable, hasta el límite
legalmente permitido, a la invocación de los tribunales
que por razón de su domicilio o residencia pudieran
corresponderles.
DECIMA CUARTA. Ejemplares. Este convenio se
suscribe de manera autógrafa en cinco tantos, cada uno
teniendo la calidad de original. El convenio podrá ser
traducido al idioma inglés
por persona
autorizada cuando así se requiera, en la inteligencia
de que en caso de interpretación prevalecerá la
versión en español.
Los Anexos al mismo constituyen parte integral del documento, por
lo que obligan a las partes con la misma fuerza legal que se le
confiere al presente convenio.
De conformidad con lo establecido al tenor de las
Cláusulas que anteceden, a continuación, las partes
suscriben este Convenio mediante los apoderados que conforme a
derecho han sido autorizados para tal efecto.
NACIONAL FINANCIERA, S.N.C. LA SECRETARIA DE HACIENDA Y
CREDITO PUBLICO
El adquirente El Agente Pagador
CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL BANCO/TENEDOR
El Inversionista Signet Bank
ANEXO III
H.R.2870
To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 to facilitate protection of tropical forests through debt
reduction with developing countries with tropical forests.
(Reported in House)
Union Calendar No. 251
105th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 2870
[Report No. 105-443]
A BILL
To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to
facilitate protection of tropical forests through debt reduction
with developing countries with tropical forests.
March 13, 1998
Reported with an amendment, committed
to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
and ordered to be printed
HR 2870 RH
Union Calendar No. 251
105th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 2870
[Report No. 105-443]
To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to
facilitate protection of tropical forests through debt reduction
with developing countries with tropical forests.
IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
November 7, 1997
Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr. KASICH, and Mr. HAMILTON)
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on International Relations
March 13, 1998
Additional sponsors: Ms. FURSE, Mr. EWING, Mr. HASTERT,
Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. KLUG, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr.
LATOURETTE, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. STOKES, Mr.
SAWYER, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. CAMP, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr.
LIPINSKI, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. DOOLEY of California, Mr.
SHERMAN, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. LUTHER, Mr. BILBRAY,
Mrs. KELLY, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. LEACH, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. MCHUGH, Ms.
WOOLSEY, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. CAMPBELL,
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. SKAGGS, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts,
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. MANZULLO, Ms.
KAPTUR, and Mr. Porter
March 13, 1998
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be
printed
[Strike out all after the enacting
clause and insert the part printed in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy
of bill as introduced on November 7, 1997]
A BILL
To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to
facilitate protection of tropical forests through debt reduction
with developing countries with tropical forests.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. DEBT REDUCTION FOR
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WITH TROPICAL FORESTS.
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
`PART V–DEBT REDUCTION FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
WITH TROPICAL FORESTS
`SEC. 801. SHORT
TITLE.
`This part may be cited as the `Tropical Forest
Conservation Act of 1998'.
`SEC. 802. FINDINGS AND
PURPOSES.
`(a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds the
following:
`(1) It is the established policy of the United
States to support and seek protection of tropical forests
around the world.
`(2) Tropical forests provide a wide range of
benefits to humankind by–
`(A) harboring a major share of the Earth's
biological and terrestrial resources, which are the basis
for developing pharmaceutical products and revitalizing
agricultural crops;
`(B) playing a critical role as carbon sinks
in reducing greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere, thus moderating potential global climate
change; and
`(C) regulating hydrological cycles on which
far-flung agricultural and coastal resources
depend.
`(3) International negotiations and assistance
programs to conserve forest resources have proliferated over
the past decade, but the rapid rate of tropical deforestation
continues unabated.
`(4) Developing countries with urgent needs for
investment and capital for development have allocated a
significant amount of their forests to logging
concessions.
`(5) Poverty and economic pressures on the
populations of developing countries have, over time, resulted
in clearing of vast areas of forest for conversion to
agriculture, which is often unsustainable in the poor soils
underlying tropical forests.
`(6) Debt reduction can reduce economic
pressures on developing countries and result in increased
protection for tropical forests.
`(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this part
are–
`(1) to recognize the values received by United
States citizens from protection of tropical
forests;
`(2) to facilitate greater protection of
tropical forests (and to give priority to protecting tropical
forests with the highest levels of biodiversity and
under
the most severe threat) by providing for the
alleviation of debt in countries where tropical forests are
located, thus allowing the use of additional resources to protect
these critical resources and reduce economic pressures that have
led to deforestation;
`(3) to ensure that resources freed from debt in
such countries are targeted to protection of tropical forests
and their associated values; and
`(4) to rechannel existing resources to facilitate
the protection of tropical forests.
`SEC. 803.
DEFINITIONS.
`As used in this part:
`(1) ADMINISTERING BODY- The term `administering
body' means the entity provided for in section
809(c).
`(2) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The
term `appropriate congressional committees'
means–
`(A) the Committee on International Relations
and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives; and
`(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations and
the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate.
`(3) BENEFICIARY COUNTRY- The term `beneficiary
country' means an eligible country with respect to which the
authority of section 806(a)(1), section 807(a)(1), or
paragraph (1) or (2) of section 808(a) is
exercised.
`(4) BOARD- The term `Board' means the board
referred to in section 811.
`(5) DEVELOPING COUNTRY WITH A TROPICAL FOREST-
The term `developing country with a tropical forest'
means–
`(A)(i) a country that has a per capita income
of $725 or less in 1994 United States dollars (commonly
referred to as `low-income country'), as determined and
adjusted on an annual basis by the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development in its World Development
Report; or
`(ii) a country that has a per capita income
of more than $725 but less than $8,956 in 1994 United
States dollars (commonly referred to as `middle-income
country'), as determined and adjusted on an annual basis by
the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
in its World Development Report; and
`(B) a country that contains at least one
tropical forest that is globally outstanding in terms of
its biological diversity or represents one of the larger
intact blocks of tropical forests left, on a regional,
continental, or global scale.
`(6) ELIGIBLE COUNTRY- The term `eligible
country' means a country designated by the President in
accordance with section 805.
`(7) TROPICAL FOREST AGREEMENT- The term
`Tropical Forest Agreement' or `Agreement' means a Tropical
Forest Agreement provided for in section 809.
`(8) TROPICAL FOREST FACILITY- The term
`Tropical Forest Facility' or `Facility' means the Tropical
Forest Facility established in the Department of the Treasury
by section 804.
`(9) TROPICAL FOREST FUND- The term `Tropical
Forest Fund' or `Fund' means a Tropical Forest Fund provided
for in section 810.
`SEC. 804. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
FACILITY.
`There is established in the Department of the
Treasury an entity to be known as the `Tropical Forest
Facility' for the purpose of providing for the administration
of debt reduction in accordance with this part.
`SEC. 805. ELIGIBILITY FOR
BENEFITS.
`(a) IN GENERAL- To be eligible for benefits from
the Facility under this part, a country shall be a developing
country with a tropical forest–
`(1) whose government meets the requirements
applicable to Latin American or Caribbean countries under
paragraphs (1) through (5) and (7) of section 703(a) of this
Act;
`(2) that has put in place major investment
reforms, as evidenced by the conclusion of a bilateral
investment treaty with the United States, implementation of
an investment sector loan with the Inter-American Development
Bank, World Bank-supported investment reforms, or other
measures, as appropriate; and
`(3) whose government meets other requirements
related to its environmental policies and practices, as
determined by the President.
`(b) ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Consistent with subsection (a),
the President shall determine whether a country is eligible
to receive benefits under this part.
`(2) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION- The President
shall notify the appropriate congressional committees of his
intention to designate a country as an
eligible country at least 15 days in advance of any
formal determination.
`SEC. 806. REDUCTION OF DEBT OWED
TO THE UNITED STATES AS A RESULT OF CONCESSIONAL LOANS UNDER THE
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961.
`(a) AUTHORITY TO REDUCE DEBT-
`(1) AUTHORITY- The President may reduce the
amount owed to the United States (or any agency of the United
States) that is outstanding as of January 1, 1997, as a
result of concessional loans made to an eligible country by
the United States under part I of this Act, chapter 4 of part
II of this Act, or predecessor foreign economic assistance
legislation.
`(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- For the
cost (as defined in section 502(5) of the Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990) for the reduction of any debt pursuant to
this section, there are authorized to be appropriated to the
President–
`(A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year
1999;
`(B) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
and
`(C) $100,000,000 for fiscal year
2001.
`(3) CERTAIN PROHIBITIONS
INAPPLICABLE-
`(A) IN GENERAL- A reduction of debt pursuant
to this section shall not be considered assistance for
purposes of any provision of law limiting assistance to a
country.
`(B) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT- The authority of
this section may be exercised notwithstanding section
620(r) of this Act or section 321 of the International
Development and Food Assistance Act of
1975.
`(b) IMPLEMENTATION OF DEBT
REDUCTION-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Any debt reduction pursuant to
subsection (a) shall be accomplished at the direction of the
Facility by the exchange of a new obligation for obligations
of the type referred to in subsection (a) outstanding as of
the date specified in subsection (a)(1).
`(2) EXCHANGE OF OBLIGATIONS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The Facility shall notify the
agency primarily responsible for administering part I of
this Act of an agreement entered into under paragraph (1)
with an eligible country to exchange a new obligation for
outstanding obligations.
`(B) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT- At the direction
of the Facility, the old obligations that are the subject
of the agreement shall be canceled and a new debt
obligation for the country shall be established relating to
the agreement, and the agency primarily responsible for
administering part I of this Act shall make an adjustment
in its accounts to reflect the debt
reduction.
`(c) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS- The
following additional terms and conditions shall apply to the
reduction of debt under subsection (a)(1) in the same manner as
such terms and conditions apply to the reduction of debt under
section 704(a)(1) of this Act:
`(1) The provisions relating to repayment of
principal under section 705 of this Act.
`(2) The provisions relating to interest on new
obligations under section 706 of this Act.
`SEC. 807. REDUCTION OF DEBT OWED
TO THE UNITED STATES AS A RESULT OF CREDITS EXTENDED UNDER TITLE
I OF THE AGRICULTURAL TRADE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSISTANCE ACT OF
1954.
`(a) AUTHORITY TO REDUCE DEBT-
`(1) AUTHORITY- Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the President may reduce the amount owed to
the United States (or any agency of the United States) that
is outstanding as of January 1, 1997, as a result of any
credits extended under title I of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.) to a country eligible for benefits from the
Facility.
`(2) AUTHORIZATION OF
APPROPRIATIONS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- For the cost (as defined in
section 502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990)
for the reduction of any debt pursuant to this section,
there are authorized to be appropriated to the
President–
`(i) $25,000,000 for fiscal year
1999;
`(ii) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
and
`(iii) $50,000,000 for fiscal year
2001.
`(B) LIMITATION- The authority provided by
this section shall be available only to the extent that
appropriations for the cost (as defined in section 502(5)
of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990) of the
modification of any debt pursuant to this section are made
in advance.
`(b) IMPLEMENTATION OF DEBT
REDUCTION-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Any debt reduction pursuant to
subsection (a) shall be accomplished at the direction of the
Facility by the exchange of a new obligation for obligations
of the type referred to in subsection (a) outstanding as of
the date specified in subsection (a)(1).
`(2) EXCHANGE OF OBLIGATIONS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The Facility shall notify the
Commodity Credit Corporation of an agreement entered into
under paragraph (1) with an eligible country to exchange a
new obligation for outstanding obligations.
`(B) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT- At the direction
of the Facility, the old obligations that are the subject
of the agreement shall be canceled and a new debt
obligation shall be established for the country relating to
the agreement, and the Commodity Credit Corporation shall
make an adjustment in its accounts to reflect the debt
reduction.
`(c) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS- The
following additional terms and conditions shall apply to the
reduction of debt under subsection (a)(1) in the same manner as
such terms and conditions apply to the reduction of debt under
section 604(a)(1) of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1738c):
`(1) The provisions relating to repayment of
principal under section 605 of such Act.
`(2) The provisions relating to interest on new
obligations under section 606 of such Act.
`SEC. 808. AUTHORITY TO ENGAGE IN
DEBT-FOR-NATURE SWAPS AND DEBT BUYBACKS.
`(a) LOANS AND CREDITS ELIGIBLE FOR SALE,
REDUCTION, OR CANCELLATION-
`(1) DEBT-FOR-NATURE SWAPS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the President may, in accordance with
this section, sell to any eligible purchaser described in
subparagraph (B) any concessional loans described in
section 806(a)(1) or any credits described in section
807(a)(1), or on receipt of payment from an eligible
purchaser described in subparagraph (B), reduce or cancel
such loans (or credits) or portion thereof, only for the
purpose of facilitating a debt-for-nature swap to support
eligible activities described in section
809(d).
`(B) ELIGIBLE PURCHASER DESCRIBED- A loan or
credit may be sold, reduced, or canceled under subparagraph
(A) only to a purchaser who presents plans satisfactory to
the President for using the loan or credit for the purpose
of engaging in debt-for-nature swaps to support eligible
activities described in section 809(d).
`(C) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT- Before the sale
under subparagraph (A) to any eligible purchaser described
in subparagraph (B), or any reduction or cancellation under
such subparagraph (A), of any loan or credit made to an
eligible country, the President shall consult with the
country concerning the amount of loans or credits to be
sold, reduced, or canceled and their uses for
debt-for-nature swaps to support eligible activities
described in section 809(d).
`(D) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- For the
cost (as defined in section 502(5) of the Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990) for the reduction of any debt pursuant
to subparagraph (A), amounts authorized to be appropriated
under sections 806(a)(2) and 807(a)(2) shall be made
available for such reduction of debt pursuant to
subparagraph (A).
`(2) DEBT BUYBACKS- Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the President may, in accordance with this
section, sell to any eligible country any concessional loans
described in section 806(a)(1) or any credits described in
section 807(a)(1), or on receipt of payment from an eligible
country, reduce or cancel such loans (or credits) or portion
thereof, only for the purpose of facilitating a debt buyback
by an eligible country of its own qualified debt, only if the
eligible country uses an additional amount of the local
currency of the eligible country, equal to not less than the
lesser of 40 percent of the price paid for such debt by such
eligible country, or the difference between the price paid
for such debt and the face value of such debt, to support
eligible activities described in section
809(d).
`(3) LIMITATION- The authority provided by
paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be available only to the extent
that appropriations for the cost (as defined in section
502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990) of the
modification of any debt pursuant such paragraphs are made in
advance.
Diario de Sesiones
48–783 CC
1998
H.R. 2870, THE TROPICAL FOREST PROTECTION ACT
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MARCH 4, 1998
Printed for the use of the Committee on International
Relations
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM GOODLING, Pennsylvania
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
JAY KIM, California
STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio
MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina
MATT SALMON, Arizona
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
TOM CAMPBELL, California
JON FOX, Pennsylvania
JOHN McHUGH, New York
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
LEE HAMILTON, Indiana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD BERMAN, California
GARY ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PAT DANNER, Missouri
EARL HILLIARD, Alabama
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVE ROTHMAN, New Jersey
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JIM DAVIS, Florida
RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff
MICHAEL H. VAN DUSEN, Democratic Chief of Staff
MARK KIRK, Counsel
KIMBERLY ROBERTS, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
WITNESSES
The Honorable Rob Portman, a
Representative in Congress from Ohio
Mr. Thomas Fox, Assistant Administrator,
Policy and Planning Bureau, Agency for International
Development
Ms. Mary Chaves, Director, International
Debt Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Mr. Ian Bowles, Vice-President of
Conservation Policy, Conservation International
Ms. Tia Nelson, Senior Policy Advisor for
Latin America and Caribbean Division, The Nature Conservancy
Mr. James Resor, Director of Conservation
Finance, World Wildlife Fund
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress
from New York and Chairman, Committee on International
Relations
The Honorable Lee Hamilton, a Representative in Congress from
Indiana
The Honorable Rob Portman, a Representative in Congress from
Ohio
Mr. Thomas Fox
Ms. Mary Chaves
Mr. Ian Bowles
Ms. Tia Nelson
Mr. James Resor
Additional material submitted for the record:
FY 1998 Supplemental and FY 1999 Budget Request for Treasury
International Programs, submitted by Representative Hamilton
H.R. 2870, THE TROPICAL FOREST PROTECTION ACT
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1998
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at
10 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn Office Building,
Hon. Benjamin Gilman (chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman GILMAN. [presiding] The
hearing will come to order.
Our hearing today begins with the formal
consideration of bipartisan legislation to help protect the
world's precious tropical forests. These habitats are home to
half of the world's known species of plants and animals. They
hold some of the keys to the future of science, climate change,
and environmental values that all of us hold so dear. Legislation
before us is H.R. 2870, the Tropical Forest Protection Act. It is
part of a proud tradition that stretches back to President
Theodore Roosevelt, a New Yorker, I might add, who founded the
world's first public park system right here in our own
nation.
This bill stems directly from President
Bush's Enterprise for the America's Initiative (EAI), to
accomplish the twin goals of relieving Latin America's debt
burden to the United States while making investments in
conservation and tropical forest protection. It has come to be
known as swapping debt-for-nature.
President Clinton continued that work,
both through the EAI and USAID's Parks in Peril Program. Building
on this body of work, we now will hear testimony on this
legislation that has been drafted by Mr. Portman, Mr. Kasich, and
our own Ranking Member, Mr. Hamilton. And while some of the
financial transactions that will take place under the bill are
complicated, the overall operation of the bill is quite simple:
The 11 countries identified in the bill for early action owe our
government approximately $15 billion.
These debts were incurred to
three agencies, USAID, the Department of Agriculture, and the
Eximbank. The bill authorizes the President to forgive a portion
of that debt, some $400 million over a 3-year period. In return,
the recipient governments are going to be able to establish
endowments that will support conservation projects supervised by
international boards representing the United States, the host
governments, and local organizations.
This bill has been done before, beginning
with EAI. So we now have a substantial body of information of
what works and how to accomplish our goals to protect the world's
environment. There is a general agreement that the first rounds
of EAI debt relief and projects were solid successes for Latin
America.
Now it's time to apply the lessons
learned in these debt-for-nature swaps to other regions in the
world where critical habitats are under siege.
I want to thank the chairman of our
Subcommittee on International and Economic Policy and Trade, Ms.
Ros-Lehtenin, for her gracious cooperation in permitting
expeditious consideration of this bill by our full Committee.
It is our intention to schedule a markup
for the bill for March 11 and to seek the Speaker's support in
scheduling the bill for early consideration by the full
House.
I now recognize one of the drafters of
this legislation, our Ranking Democrat Member, Mr. Hamilton, for
any remarks that he may have. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, first
I want to thank you for not only having the hearing but moving
expeditiously toward a markup. Mr. Portman and I and Mr. Kasich
very much appreciate your willingness to do that. I want
especially to commend Representative Portman today who is the
principal author of the legislation for the outstanding work that
he has done. It has been a privilege for me to have the
opportunity to work with him and to be supportive of his
efforts.
Mr. Chairman, if it is OK, I think what I
will do is yield to Mr. Portman to testify, then perhaps when he
is through, you would permit me to make a few additional
observations. But since he is the principal sponsor of the bill,
I think he should set it out. I've seen his statement. It's an
excellent statement and after that I request that I have the
opportunity to say a few words in support of the
legislation.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank
you, Mr. Hamilton. We are fortunate to be joined by the prime
mover of this legislation, the Congressman from Ohio's Second
District, Rob Portman. I understand that we also will be joined
by your partner, Mr. Kasich, but he's holding a hearing at the
moment with Mr. Greenspan.
Before recognizing Mr. Portman, does
anyone else have any opening comments?
[No response.]
If not, Mr. Portman, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROB PORTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. PORTMAN. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Committee, for giving me
the opportunity to talk about the legislation today, H.R. 2870. I
did introduce it with John Kasich and your Ranking Member, Mr.
Hamilton.
And, Chairman Gilman, you've been a
pioneer in this area. Back in the 1980's, you led efforts on
debt-for-nature and I want to thank you for your early assistance
in drafting this legislation; your good ideas to improve it, some
of which we'll talk about in a moment; and as Mr. Hamilton just
said, your willingness to move it expeditiously through the
Committee process.
The purpose of the legislation is to
preserve and protect tropical forests worldwide on a sustained
basis. This morning I will briefly discuss the problem, its
underlying causes, and how we think this bill addresses them. The
Committee has also asked for recommendations that Mr. Hamilton,
Mr. Kasich, and I might have as how to improve the bill and I'll
offer a few this morning.
As the Committee knows, tropical forests
provide a wide range of benefits, literally affecting the air we
breathe, the food we eat, and the medicines which cure disease.
Forests which include the rain forest, so-called moist forests,
and dry forests in tropical areas, harbor between 50 and 90
percent of the Earth's terrestrial biodiversity. They also act as
carbon sinks, absorbing massive quantities of carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere, thereby reducing greenhouse gases. They regulate
rainfall on which agriculture and coastal resources depend, which
is of great importance to regional and global climate. And they,
of course, are the breeding grounds for new drugs that can cure
disease.
Tragically, just since 1950, it
is estimated that we've lost half of our tropical forests. The
most comprehensive survey of global deforestation shows that both
the area deforested and the annual rate has increased
considerably between 1980 and 1990. During that decade, we lost
forests equal to about 30 million acres every year. Unfortunately
it continues at a rapid pace in the 1990's. We believe we are now
losing tropical forests annually in an area larger than the State
of Pennsylvania.
Tropical deforestation and degradation,
of course, are driven by poverty and economic pressures. Such
pressures on the populations of developing countries have
resulted in the clearing of vast areas of forest, for conversion
to agriculture which is often unsustainable in the poor soils, of
course, that underlie these tropical forests.
Less-developed countries with urgent
needs for investment and capital for development have allocated a
significant amount of their forests also to logging concessions.
Many of these less-developed countries that contain some of the
most globally important tropical forests also have significant
amounts of U.S. debt outstanding, some of which is unlikely to be
repaid fully or on a timely basis. In fact, approximately half of
the world's tropical forests are located in four
countries—Indonesia, Peru, Brazil,
and the Congo—and these countries alone in the aggregate
have over $5 billion of U.S. debt outstanding.
Building on the successes, Mr. Chairman,
you talked a moment ago of President Bush's Enterprise of the
America Initiative in the 1990's, this bill links these two very
important facts of life. First, the important tropical forests
are disappearing at a very rapid rate, and second, they are
located in less-developed countries that have a very hard time
repaying their debts to the United States.
The legislation gives the President
authority to reduce or cancel USAID, P.L. 480, the ag debt you
talked about, and Eximbank debt owed by an eligible country to
the United States in exchange for the creation of a fund in the
local currency that preserves, maintains, and restores tropical
forests.
It is different than the EAI in
a few ways. First, of course, it enables every country in the
world to participate, not just Latin America and the Caribbean.
Second, it targets the resources in the initial years to specific
countries, I think it is 11 countries we have identified
initially, to ensure that we are maximizing conservation efforts,
so it is a more targeted effort. And, third, it narrows the
criteria of EAI so that the protection of tropical forests is a
primary focus.
These debt-for-nature exchanges achieve
two important goals. First, of course, they relieve some
of the economic pressure that is fueling deforestation we talked
about earlier, and, second, they provide the funds for
conservation efforts in those eligible countries. There is also
the power of leveraging—and this is what is really exciting
to the proposal to me, its $1 of debt reduction, in many cases,
could buy $2 or many more dollars in environmental
conservation.
Let me just give you one very simple
example. In 1990, U.S loans Brazil $100, let's say. In 1998,
because of worsening economic conditions and an inability to
repay that debt fully and on a timely basis, that debt is scored
on our books by CBO as having an asset value of $50. The United
States enters into a debt-for-nature exchange under this bill to
reduce the debt from $50 to $40 in exchange for Brazil's
agreement to put $25 worth of local currency into a fund to
preserve tropical forests.
The cost to the U.S. taxpayer then is
$10, the difference between the old instrument of $50 and the new
one of $40, and yet we get $25 worth of environmental
conservation. That's more than 2-for-1 leveraging. Some of the
models I've seen, the Treasury Department has some very
sophisticated modeling, I must admit I don't understand it all,
but some of the modeling I've seen has shown leverage rates of as
high as 10 to 1.
So again, that's what I think is so
exciting about this proposal and the possibilities here for real
environmental protection using the dollar very
efficiently.
Thanks to our colleague, John
Kasich, this legislation takes a more targeted approach, as I
said earlier. Trying to be fiscally conservative here in the
first 2 years, the bill gives the President authority to enter
into those transactions with these 11 specific countries I spoke
about a moment ago who have the most globally important and
biologically diverse forests and ones we think are under the most
severe threat. In the third year, the President has the authority
to designate any eligible country. So we broaden it after the
third year.
In all 3 years, the President must give
Congress advance notification of his intention to designate a
country as being eligible.
My first suggestion I might have this
morning for possible improvement would be giving the President
some emergency authority in the first couple of years to
designate a country that is not on that targeted list, if
circumstances so merit. I think this strikes a pretty good
balance between the need to target our resources, which we all
acknowledge, but also we need to provide the Administration some
flexibility.
For any country to qualify, of course, it
must meet the same criteria established by Congress under the
EAI, including that the government has to be democratically
elected, it has to be cooperating on international narcotics
control matters,
not supporting terrorism, or as Chris Smith who was here a moment
ago, feels so strongly about, and other Members of this Committee
of course, that the country not be violating internationally
recognized human rights.
Furthermore, to ensure the eligible
country meets minimum financial criteria to meet its new
obligations under the restructured terms, the bill includes the
EAI criteria requiring some progress on economic reforms.
In preparing this legislation, we looked
carefully at the issue of accountability—how these funds
would actually be used. And, as the chairman indicated, we have a
track record under EAI. It has facilitated debt-for-nature
exchanges in seven Latin American and Caribbean countries,
providing up to $154 million, at this point, in local
conservation funds.
They have been used for
reforestation, soil and water conservation, biodiversity, and
other conservation projects. A specific example would be
reforestation of over 3,000 acres and soil and water conservation
efforts on another 2,780 acres in El Salvador, reforestation and
protection of highland forests in Colombia,
sustainable tree harvesting and forest management in Chile,
training indigenous populations on alternative uses of tropical
forest resources, and developing eco-tourism programs on the
Pacific Coast of Colombia.
Some of the local administering bodies
set up under EAI to monitor the
use of the funds hired outside consultants such as Price
Waterhouse and Peat Marwick to evaluate and audit the operations
of the funds, which provides an additional level of comfort.
Although the EAI legislation did not
provide a cap for administrative expenses, the individual
framework agreements establishing the local boards typically do
limit them to a certain percentage. Usually it's around 10
percent of the total annual interest payment made into the
account by the eligible country.
As another suggestion, this morning I
might suggest Mr. Chairman, at least in the Committee language,
congressional intent be made clear that administrative expenses
should generally be capped at 10 percent, or perhaps that it is
the intent of Congress it will be 10 percent, just so that a vast
majority of the funds do go toward conservation.
Other than problems that have been
identified, I've been told with the operation of programs in
Bolivia due to
oversight and implementation difficulties, but I understand are
being addressed, we believe that those involved on the EAI board
and others who have been active in these operations believe that
the program is going quite well.
We do think we have a good model in
place, Mr. Chairman, as mentioned earlier.
To ensure that funds are used for the
purposes that relate directly to the preservation and protection
of tropical forests, however, we did, as I said earlier, narrow
the EAI criteria. Eligible activities include establishment,
restoration, protection, and maintenance of parks and reserves;
development and implementation of sound systems of natural
resource management and restoration; and protection and
sustainable use of diverse animal and plant species.
In the event a country
participating in EAI also wants to participate in this program, I
think the Committee might want to consider providing some
flexibility, Mr. Chairman, to coordinate the implementation and
oversight of the two efforts to avoid unnecessary administrative
costs and duplication of effort.
I think flexibility there would make
sense.
The legislation authorizes $400 million
over 3 years to cover the budget-scored so-called cost of this
debt reduction, which we have to do, as you know, under our
rules. At the suggestion of the Budget Committee, we have
provided a smaller amount of funding in the initial years to get
the program up and running properly so it will start small so
that we will have the program up and running before we enter into
these debt-for-nature swaps.
Because USAID and P.L. 480 loans have
been the subject of EAI transactions and probably hold the most
promise for exchanges in the future, we have provided most of the
funding to offset these specific costs.
Since the time we introduced the bill,
the United States has actually entered into an exchange
transaction with Peru. We understand that exchange took place
just last week. As part of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1997, the President was given
authority to engage in so-called debt buy-back transactions,
where an eligible country pays the U.S. Government the full asset
value, we talked about earlier, of the debt outstanding, and then
contributes an additional amount, equivalent to 40 percent of the
total purchase price over several years to a local fund for
environmental and child survival programs.
If countries can afford to pay back that
debt fully, I think this is a nice option and it really has no
cost to the U.S. taxpayer and I think ought to be encouraged. We
have drafted an additional amendment to this legislation, H.R.
2870, to give the President this additional authority for
conservation purposes only. And, again, I would recommend, Mr.
Chairman, that the Committee consider adding such a provision to
this bill to ensure that we are not discouraging these debt
buy-back arrangements. The benefit, again, of course, is that it
doesn't cost the U.S. taxpayer a dime.
This legislation this morning is
really a product of a lot of different people's thinking. Lee
Hamilton has been key to this. We came to Mr. Hamilton early,
knowing of his interest. John Kasich, as I said earlier. Also a
lot of outside groups. Conservation International (CI) has given
a lot of expertise on this as well as The Nature Conservancy
(TNC), World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and many others. Many of these
organizations have worked on this issue for years and believe
that this is the right way to go. I believe they will be
addressing that themselves later.
We have strong bipartisan support in the
House and companion legislature is ready to go in the Senate. It
is my understanding that Senators Lugar, Biden, Chaffee, and
Leahy are introducing it shortly in the U.S. Senate and Senator
Lugar is quite interested in it, wants to move it, Mr. Chairman,
as soon as possible following the House.
Again, I want to commend you, Mr.
Chairman, and Mr. Hamilton, and other Members of the Committee
for all of their support and for their efforts to improve this
bill. I think it can be improved in certain respects as I
mentioned today. And I want to thank, particularly, all of the
Members of the Committee who cosponsored it and a number of
Members have. I look forward to working with you to improve the
legislation that preserves and protects these important tropical
forests worldwide in a fiscally responsible manner.
[The prepared statement of the Mr.
Portman appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr.
Portman, for your extensive testimony and for your good work in
bringing this before the Committee at an early date and I hope we
can move it to the floor at an early date.
And while the bill has widespread
support, it certainly is not cheap. I believe the CBO will score
the measure at $400 million over a 3-year period. And of course
you and Mr. Kasich are famous budget cutters. How does the
program fit into our overall plan of spending
restraint?
Mr. PORTMAN. Well, I
think it fits in fine so as long as we find the offsets. We have
been strongly advised by the appropriators not to include offsets
in the legislation. However, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Kasich, and I have
all been concerned about that, as you have, I know. We are doing,
one thing I mentioned this morning, which is again we are
attempting to amend the bill to insert these debt buy backs which
would be cost free.
But also, first, we have to make a point
that Mr. Kasich is committed himself to look into the
international operations area of the budget and determine where
we can find some appropriate offsets.
Second, I'll say, you know the taxpayer
really isn't going to get repaid on this debt and just as
commercial banks do all the time, we ought to get something for
it. The commercial banks tend to discount it. We tend to have the
debt hanging out there and get nothing for it. We are talking
about discounting it, but then, as I said earlier, getting this
very exciting leveraging you get in these countries to be able to
get something for it, which is a significant environmental
benefit, conservation benefit. So, I think it is a fiscally
responsible way to go. We looked at a lot of other options, and,
in the end we believed this was the best way to go and in the end
the taxpayer is going to get a deal here because we are going to
get some debt repaid and we are going to get some benefit for
it.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Portman, how
would you monitor the funds that are supposed to be set up in
trust in each country?
Mr. PORTMAN. Well, that's a good
question. As I said earlier, we want to be sure that this is
accountable. The way we set it up is that there will be an NGO,
nongovernmental organization, in these foreign countries that
will be heading up these individual funds, they will be using
local currency. Also there will be a U.S. representative on all
of these committees. We think that's important to have the direct
accountability. We think there is more accountability in this
program, for example, than in the existing EAI, as good as it is.
And, again, as I said earlier, I think there have been very few
examples of any problems with EAI. But we take that into account
and again I think our accountability measures here are sound, to
be sure that we have the money going to the right places and that
there is some monitoring by U.S. Government officials.
Chairman GILMAN. Pleased
to hear that. Some groups would like for us to weaken the
condition requiring an open investment regime by recipient
country. What do you think of that proposal?
Mr. PORTMAN. I will be honest with
you. I don't have the expertise to be able to comment as to
whether we can loosen that up a bit. Your committee would be
better equipped to do that. I think it is important that we keep
to the criteria that we have in existing facilitation through EAI
so I would hesitate to do it, considering we have a good track
record, without careful consideration.
Chairman GILMAN. What's the
prognosis for the Senate?
Mr. PORTMAN. I think it is pretty
good. We have a lot of interest over there. I think to be honest
they are waiting for you. I think they want to be sure that this
committee takes the lead, that they know it is a House project,
that it is something that we've been working on for 6 to 9 months
now but Senator Lugar is eager to move forward with it.
I've talked personally to a couple of
other Republican Senators who would like to assist him on that
and I know that he has the support of a couple of Democrats on
the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, so I think
prospects are very good, particularly if we can expedite the
process as you have suggested in your statement earlier and get
it to the floor this spring.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr.
Portman.
Mr. PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I just
ask unanimous consent, first of all, to include my full statement
in the record.
Chairman GILMAN. Without
objection, Mr. Hamilton. Mr.
HAMILTON. And, Mr. Chairman, I also would like unanimous
consent to include a document from the U.S. Treasury titled
''Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Justification for the Global
Environment Facility.'' I think probably the appropriate place
for that to appear will be after the Treasury's witness, Ms.
Chaves, and I ask that that be included in the record at that
point, after her testimony.
Chairman GILMAN. Without
objection.
[The information referred to appears in
the appendix.]
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I will
not try to go through my full statement because I think Mr.
Portman has done an excellent job in setting out the
environmental concerns that led to this bill and describing the
bill.
What I think I will try to do is just to
summarize very quickly what I think the advantages of the bill
are, and there are many of them.
First of all, economic development. It's
going to bolster economic development in the beneficiary
countries, it is going to help reduce those countries' debt
burden, it's going to create sustainable agricultural
development, and it will reduce the economic pressure to destroy
the tropical forests for short-term economic gain.
Second, it will help preserve the
tropical forests, reducing the buildup of greenhouse gases, and
protect crucial rainfall patterns. The bill would preserve global
biodiversity and the potential for medical and ecological
innovations to improve people's lives. That's becoming
increasingly important as these tropical forests are seen as
reservoirs of great promise for many new agricultural and medical
initiatives.
Third, the cooperative agreements would
create a very strong incentive for eligible nations to cooperate
with the United States on environmental protection efforts and
that will improve their management of local natural
resources.
Fourth, the targeted approach of the bill
is on the countries that have tropical forests at risk. It is
limited to those countries whose debt to the United States can be
renegotiated at a minimal cost to the U.S. budget.
Fifth, as Mr. Portman has said, there are
good management practices built in here. The bill focuses on the
establishment, restoration, protection, and management of
tropical forests to ensure a well-planned and well-managed
program.
Sixth, there is accountability.
The bill ensures accountability and results by establishing
strict oversight controls with full participation of the U.S.
Government, the foreign government involved, and U.S. and local
environmental experts.
Seventh, I think the bill promotes U.S.
foreign policy objectives by requiring that beneficiary countries
have good human rights records, counter narcotics programs, and
counterterrorist policies, among others. The bill protects U.S.
economic interests by establishing rigorous, though fair,
economic criteria for eligibility.
And finally, I think the bill helps build
partnerships between the United States and the beneficiary
countries, demonstrating in action, not just words, that the U.S.
commitment to improving economic and environmental conditions in
the beneficiary countries is real.
I want to join Mr. Portman in thanking a
number of groups for their support. I don't know that I know all
of them but there are a good many. Several are testifying today,
we have, of course, the Administration witnesses, but we also
have representatives of the TNC, CI and WWF testifying in support
of the bill.
I join with Mr. Portman in saying that we
are open to improvements to the bill; he's mentioned several of
them. I am supportive of those. On the one question you raised,
Mr. Chairman, I know that the eligibility criteria includes a
requirement that the beneficiary have an open investment regime.
That provision is meant to ensure that benefits do not go to
countries that cannot pay back the new loans or which would
discriminate against U.S. businesses.
Some groups have raised some concerns
about the requirement and think that it might possibly be used to
limit local environmental protections. That, of course, is not
our intent and I think the sponsors of the bill would be quite
prepared to work to clarify the position as the bill moves
through the process.
So, I think we have a good bill here. I
am enthusiastic about it. Mr. Portman has done marvelous work on
it to date. We have really had support across the board in both
the Senate and the House and both political parties, and I am
quite encouraged that we can move this bill forward quickly and
make a significant contribution this year.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. I don't have any further questions.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Mr.
Chabot has asked to make a 1-minute statement since he has
another meeting.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, I'll be
very brief. I have a markup in Judiciary. I want to compliment
Mr. Portman for his excellent work on this very important issue.
And I think that the Tropical Forest Conservation Act is a sound
free-market approach to a very serious global and environmental
program, and again, I commend you for your excellent work on
this. I am pleased to be a cosponsor, and one of 11 cosponsors on
this committee.
The tropical forests provide a wide range
of benefits to the world. These forests help to reduce greenhouse
gases, and house many of the species used as a basis for
developing pharmaceutical products. As developing countries
continue to allow the tropical forest to be exploited for
agriculture, logging, and other interests, the need to save these
forests becomes more urgent.
And, in response to the Chairman's
comments about the budget and the implications, I also share the
concerns, but I know that both Mr. Portman and Mr. Kasich are
serious budget cutters, as am I, and I look forward to working
with Mr. Portman and Mr. Kasich to find the budget offsets so
this is paid for. I think this is an excellent bill and I once
again want to commend Mr. Portman on his good work on this.
Mr. PORTMAN. Thank you for your
support.
Mr. CHABOT. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr.
Chabot. Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. BALLENGER. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Portman, I've got personal
questions I may ask you about because my wife and I have been
involved in trying to plant trees all through Central and South
America. And when you say ''tropical,'' I read somewhere in there
it says the Caribbean area. Along with CARE International, we've
already done a million and a half trees in Haiti and we're trying
to do two million more trees that I just shipped the equipment to
do about a month ago. Is Haiti included in all of this?
Especially when you say open investment regime, the ability to
pay it back, I just wonder if it fits them or not.
Mr. PORTMAN. First of
all, you are kind of a one-man debt-for-nature swapper without
any debt involved so that is the best deal of all. I know you and
your wife have been very involved in this and I commend you for
it. Haiti is already included of course in the Caribbean so under
the existing EAI, Haiti could qualify geographically. I'm not
sure why we haven't done that debt-for-nature swap yet in Haiti.
Maybe there is a witness who will testify later who will give us
more information on that.
Maybe it is something to do with the
criteria that we've set out. What we tried to do, Mr. Ballenger,
with this legislation is for the first 2 years anyway, focus on
the 11 countries where there is the greatest need, where they
have the most tropical forests that are the most endangered. And
then we open it up to other countries. The notion here is to try
to get at these countries, like Brazil, Indonesia, the Congo,
where you have the forest being devastated at such rapid
rates.
Mr. BALLENGER. Let me ask you a
question, because I don't know who is included in the 11. I
missed the beginning of your statement.
Mr. PORTMAN. Yes.
Mr. BALLENGER. But, in El Salvador
and in Nicaragua, where the war was on and it turns out that
anytime the troops settled down at night, they cut down all the
trees around them so they wouldn't get overrun by rebels, or vice
versa, and I've been working with USAID in Nicaragua and the
Celesian Order in El Salvador. Are those included? I'm trying to
look for a free ride if I can find a way to get back down
there.
[Laughter.]
Are they included at all?
Mr. PORTMAN. We'll help you. First
of all, with regards to El Salvador, there is actually some great
reforestation going on already, along the lines of
debt-for-nature, in addition to what you've done. I mentioned
that in my testimony but there have been 47 reforestation
projects resulting already in thousands of acres being protected
in El Salvador so they are already included in EAI because they
are a Latin American country and meet the criteria there. Let me
give you just quickly the list of the 11 for your purposes and
others who are interested.
I mentioned the Congo earlier.
It's not in the original 11 although they do have a lot of
tropical forests that have been cut down in recent years. It is
Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Guyana,
Ivory Coast, Liberia, Madagascar, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea,
Peru, and the Philippines and that assumes they meet the other
criteria in the legislation.
After 2 years, it goes on to that. Congo
apparently does not meet some of the political criteria we have
in this legislation so it starts with the 11 countries where
there is the most need, but it should be expanded beyond that if
it works. And we said earlier, although, as the Chairman said it
is not inexpensive, $400 million, if we can find the offsets,
which we are all committed to do, and if we can get this debt
actually repaid with some money coming back to the U.S. Treasury,
it is a good deal for the taxpayer. In addition, of course, we
get this conservation benefit.
Mr. BALLENGER. Let me just offer,
if I may, what we've done with everybody else and I don't like to
deal with the government but generally speaking, I don't try to
sell anything to the government, but it turns out that the
cheapest way to do this is to have a little plastic bag, punch a
hole in it, put dirt in the bottom, put in a seed and let it
grow, you fill all the area up and spray it once a day and it
grows and grows, then you give the trees away to be planted.
That's what we've done in all of these
other places. It just so happens my company makes the plastic
bags and we eat the cost of them and, like I said, the 2 million
that I just sent to Haiti personally hurt financially and I would
be glad to assist in any way, shape, or form that I can but I
don't want to give the government money.
It's my money that they are using anyhow,
so I just thought I'd offer the opportunity if my past experience
would help anything and I'd love to be a cosponsor of your bill.
I don't know whether I am or not.
Mr. PORTMAN. That would be great.
We'd love to have you.
Mr. BALLENGER. I am still
going to help the ones that I've got, but if you need some help
on those others, I would be glad to help out.
Thank you very much.
Mr. PORTMAN. Thank you, Cass.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr.
Ballenger. Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I just
wish to commend my colleague, Mr. Portman. I think it is a fine
bill and I want to say that your leadership is very much
appreciated and I would also like to cosponsor your legislation
and I look forward to working with you on it. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Portman. Thanks, Tom.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr.
Campbell. Mr. Blunt.
Mr. BLUNT. I have no comments at
this time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr.
Blunt. Mr. Portman, again we thank you for taking the time to be
with us, and for your support of this measure and for your
leadership and we hope we can at an early date mark it up and
report it to the floor. Thank you.
Mr. PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you for the help of your staff as well.
Chairman GILMAN. We now call on
our next witness, Mr. Thomas Fox, Assistant Administrator, Policy
and Planning Bureau, Agency for International Development.
Mr. Fox, you may put your full statement
in the record or summarize it. Also joining you is Ms. Mary
Chaves, Director, International Debt Policy, U.S. Department of
the Treasury. Ms. Chaves, would you be kind enough to join
us?
Mr. Fox, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, POLICY AND
PROGRAM COORDINATION BUREAU, AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. FOX. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I, too, would like to commend Congressman Portman for
his leadership in developing this idea. I would also like to
thank the whole Committee for inviting me to testify on the
Tropical Forest Conservation Act. My comments today will focus on
USAID's perspective on the bill as currently drafted. We look
forward to working with you and with the rest of the executive
branch to finalize our position on the bill.
A key element in USAID's Government
Performance and Results Act strategy is a large, carefully
designed environmental program in which forestry is an essential
component. We welcome and support the objectives and intent of
H.R. 2870 as an additional tool to achieve our objectives and as
an indication of this committee's continuing support for
international environmental issues.
However, we are concerned with the
possible implications of an authorization for appropriations.
Perhaps the EAI model of no cost to the U.S. taxpayer would be an
extremely useful approach for supporting the purposes of this
bill as Congressman Portman has suggested. USAID would be pleased
to work with this committee to further explore this approach as
well as to develop other specific suggestions for improving
legislation.
USAID has extensive experience with the
EAI, the model for this bill. We have learned that national
environmental endowments provide long-term stable financing for
sustainable development activities, lessen dependency of
nongovernmental organizations on donor organizations, build the
capacity of local groups, promote civil society and democracy,
and leverage funds from other donors. Through the EAI program and
other endowment and debt-swap programs, USAID has found that in
certain circumstances, endowments are viable and creative options
for development. They are worth the considerable time, often
years, technical assistance, and funding required to develop the
institutional capability of a newly endowed organization to plan
and carry out effective grant-making programs aimed at supporting
environmental conservation.
The proposed Tropical Forest
Conservation Act would provide valuable support to USAID key
objectives and core values in three essential ways. First, for
the past two decades, forestry programs have been a principal
element in USAID's program for managing the environment for
long-term sustainability. These forestry programs are now a major
part of our overall environmental objective in our new GPRA
strategy.
Our overall environmental portfolio for
Fiscal Year 1998 is estimated to be approximately $516 million
and in 1999, is estimated to rise to approximately $578
million.
Through our valued partnership with
nongovernmental organizations (three of whom are here), the U.S.
Forest Service, universities, and private companies, we have
achieved impressive and tangible results toward all of the
benefits forests provide including mitigating global climate
change, preserving biodiversity, conserving soil, increasing
economic productivity, and protecting watersheds and drinking
water supplies.
The findings on the importance of
tropical forests outlined in section 802 of H.R. 2870 provide an
eloquent summary that is completely congruent with USAID's own
often-presented rationale for why forestry is such an essential
element of our environmental programs and is a building block for
both a sustainable economic development and protecting the
world's environment.
Second, USAID has extensive experience
with the EAI, both as a member of the President's EAI Board here
in Washington and as the principal implementation agency in the
field. We have learned that in addition to reducing debt and
improving the environment, child survival, and child development,
strengthening civil society and governments is an equally
important result of this program.
Governmental and nongovernmental
organizations working hand in hand on a board of directors is a
novel and dynamic model for achieving practical democracy and
civil society goals. Establishing a structure whereby governments
and nongovernmental groups must work as mutually respected
partners to manage a significant resource on behalf of their
society, brings a government and their people closer together in
the common cause of solving their country's problems.
Third, from USAID's perspective,
we have found that programs to address the debt burdens facing
countries where USAID works have made important contributions to
our sustainable development activities. This is an important
element of our programs, toward which H.R. 2870 could make an
important contribution. I understand that my colleague from the
Treasury Department will be offering testimony on the debt
aspects of this bill in greater detail today, so I will defer to
her testimony.
USAID does have some concerns about the
potential implications of this bill for our carefully designed
programs and our GPRA strategic goals, which could result in an
authorization to appropriate up to $400 million over 3 years for
tropical forestry purposes within the international affairs
budget, that is the function 150 account. We've worked long and
hard with our partner nongovernmental organizations and other
Federal agencies, universities, companies, other donors, and host
countries, to develop our current forestry portfolio. Within the
tight funding constraints we work under, our program represents a
jointly designed best effort and our highest priority to achieve
our ambitious strategic targets.
However, the timing for the consideration
of this bill is awkward, as our bill is currently pending, and we
need to review our environmental and debt programs in the context
of this legislation. Our experience with the EAI is that it
creates useful trust funds for the environment, child survival,
and child development through debt reduction at no cost to the
U.S. taxpayer, as Congressman Portman has said.
Whether using the debt buy back, or debt
swap provisions, no U.S. Government appropriation is involved, an
obvious benefit in these cost-cutting and budget-balancing
days.
We would be very pleased to suggest a
number of additional specific revisions to H.R. 2870 based on our
extensive experience with forestry, biodiversity endowments,
nongovernmental organizations, and civil society and
governments.
Thank you for allowing me to
present our strong support for the purposes and objectives of
H.R. 2870. We look forward to seeing how best to integrate these
possible authorities with our environmental and debt forgiveness
programs.
I'd also like to take advantage of this
opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to thank the Committee on behalf of
USAID for your past and future bipartisan support for full
funding for the Administration's function 150 account. Your
championing of our work is greatly appreciated. We look forward
to working with you further on this bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fox
appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr.
Fox. Ms. Chaves. Mary Chaves is the Director of the International
Debt Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury. We welcome Mary
Chaves to our Committee and you may put your full statement in
the record and summarize or give the full statement at this time,
whichever you deem appropriate. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARY CHAVES, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL DEBT POLICY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Ms. CHAVES. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here to testify on
the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998. I will try to
summarize my testimony somewhat and ask that the full testimony
be included in the record.
Chairman GILMAN. Without
objection. Please proceed.
Ms. CHAVES. This legislation would
protect tropical forests in developing countries through a
combination of U.S. debt reduction and debtor government creation
of local funds to preserve, maintain, and restore tropical
forests. The fundamental objectives of this legislation are
highly laudable. The Treasury Department supports both efforts to
preserve tropical forests and the concept of linking debt
reduction to environmental objectives within a specific
legislation.
The original EAI and our current buy-back
swap program encompass such linkage. H.R. 2870 closely follows
that of the EAI, through which the United States has provided
$875 million in debt reduction to 7 countries within Latin
America and the Caribbean. This program generated $154 million in
local currency funds for the environment and child survival, with
over 700 grassroots projects funded to date, ranging from
reforestation projects and the rehabilitation of critical
watersheds to environmental projects for homeless
children.
One of the U.S. environmental
nongovernmental organizations has called the EAI the best-kept
secret in Washington. We're glad it is good work and this
hemisphere is being recognized. The local funds created through
the debt reduction that we did in the early 1990's will continue
to generate funds for the environment and child survival for many
more years.
Recently, in an effort to continue the
EAI program, the Administration proposed, and Congress approved,
a debt buy-back and swap program for the region. Under this
program, USAID debt is sold at its government asset value, based
on its expected net present value.
The sale can occur either to the debtor
country through a buy back or to a third party through a swap. No
U.S. budget cost is incurred through these transactions. The
debtor country receives a debt-reduction benefit and in turn
provides local currency resources to support environmental, child
survival, development, or investment programs.
We have received expressions of interest
in this program from Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and Guatemala and
have just completed a debt buy back for Peru. Peru's transaction
permitted it to repurchase USAID debt for one-third of its face
value while generating $23 million for local environmental and
child survival programs. We believe authority for buy backs or
swaps would be a useful addition to H.R. 2870 and that it could
significantly reduce its budget costs.
The Administration's Fiscal Year 1999
budget request focuses primarily in the debt restructuring area
on programs for the poorest countries. This includes up to 67
percent debt reduction under Naples terms within the Paris Club
of Creditor Governments.
For those countries requiring additional
relief, the Paris Club will provide up to 80 percent of debt
reduction, in combination of that relief by other multilateral
institutions, including the IMF and the World Bank. This
initiative is known as the Heavily Indebted Poorest Country
Initiative, or HIPC as we call it.
In addition, the Administration
is seeking appropriations to support full forgiveness of
confessional debt for poorest African countries, which qualify
with strong reform efforts under the President's Africa
initiative. In considering this legislation, the Administration
will want to review how this legislation might compliment
existing debt-reduction programs. We are also concerned that
support of the legislation not take resources from existing debt
and environmental programs which we believe are a priority.
In particular, the Administration is
seeking $300 million in Fiscal Year 1999 appropriations for the
Global Environment Facility, known as the GEF. This includes
$192.52 million to clear GEF arrears, and $107.5 million for a
first contribution to a new replenishment.
The pilot phase of the GEF and the
negotiations for the first independent GEF occurred during the
Bush Administration. It has continued to receive strong
bipartisan support during the Clinton Administration. The GEF is
the foremost international organization helping developing and
Eastern European countries conserve the world's remaining forests
and their biological diversity.
The GEF also assists in addressing
degradation of international waters and fisheries, pollution from
inefficient energy use and destruction of the ozone layer.
The GEF is our top environmental priority
internationally and our top arrears clearance priority among the
multilateral banks for Fiscal Year 1999. Its arrears are the
highest of any of the international financial institutions. We
believe it is crucial to clear all of the GEF arrears and to
authorize and contribute to the second GEF replenishment this
year.
We therefore encourage strong
congressional support for our funding requests for the GEF as a
key element of U.S. international environmental program.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
mention that we believe that the current legislation you have
proposed could attractively compliment our current programs in
future years. We will want to work with this committee as the
legislation moves forward to consider a number of issues,
including whether to continue to focus attention on concessional
debt, as we have in the past, or to also include action on other
debt as suggested in this legislation.
The Administration could
conceivably use this legislation to top up action under existing
programs for poorest countries and as a new benefit for lower
middle-income countries with heavy debt burdens in all regions of
the world. However, we believe the Administration should have the
flexibility to adjust the degree of debt reduction and to utilize
debt buy backs or swaps where appropriate for more credit worthy
countries.
Finally, some of the proposed eligible
countries for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 are already receiving
benefits under our existing debt-reduction programs, or have
little remaining U.S. debt. A broader scope for action would
permit the Administration to take into account both the relative
need for debt reduction and the potential for tropical forest
benefits in individual countries in designing a final
program.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chaves
appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms.
Chaves. And I thank you for your testimony. While this measure is
pending, I understand that our nation recently concluded an
innovative debt buy-back transaction with the government of Peru
at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer.
Mr. Fox could these types of transactions
be used to support our environmental programs?
Mr. FOX. Mr. Chairman, that
particular transaction is one that I don't know very well, but it
is the existing EAI model where our own appropriated funds were
not called into question and the buy back came from sources in
the developing country itself. So it is this kind of an example
that we very much want to include in the bill as it goes forward
and not have it be dependent entirely on appropriated funds.
I do, however, have some question about
how an individual developing country might view the bill if there
appears to be a choice between using appropriated funds and funds
that only come from their own treasuries. I would need to think
through this interesting and important question.
Chairman GILMAN. And we'd
welcome any opinion you might have at a later date, in regard to
it.
In your statement, Mr. Fox, you expressed
concerns about the funding for this bill. Could you elaborate a
little more on that, what programs might be cut to accommodate
this?
Mr. FOX. It certainly has to do,
sir, with a question about where would the offsetting funds come
from. Our budget, as you are well aware, is already a combination
of a number of special provisions and directives and so forth, in
addition to the conclusions about programming and budget that
come from our own strategic planning process; so that there is a
question of tradeoffs that we would need to understand before we
would know exactly what the cost would be to our existing
plans.
Chairman GILMAN. Can you suggest
any areas of tradeoff?
Mr. FOX. Not now, sir. Thank
you.
Chairman GILMAN. If you do have
some thoughts, again we would welcome your submitting them to the
Committee.
And, Mr. Fox, you also noted you would be
suggesting some changes to the bill. Given that our markup is
scheduled for March 11, can you tell us what changes you have in
mind and can you get those to us before our markup?
Mr. FOX. I'll give you some sense
of the things that we are considering. As I've said, we have not
yet completed our review of the bill with the rest of the
Administration but some of the questions have already been
raised. First is adding very specifically the question about buy
backs in the legislation.
A second would be to consider adding a
criterion for the eligible countries, a criterion that would in
some way assess the policy framework by which forests are managed
in the country. In other words is there a policy framework that
itself gives some chance for forests to be protected, in addition
to what our legislation might do?
That would be an important
provision, I think.
A third would be, perhaps greater
flexibility in the list of eligible countries. There certainly
are some countries that are not now on the list of 11 that we
would consider to be potentially important—ones where we
are already working as in, for instance, the central part of
Africa. Finally, it might be worth considering broadening the
definition of the forests to be conserved. We know, for instance,
that the benefits to be accrued from temperate forests rival
those for tropical forests; and there is also a scientific
question, when does something cease being tropical and when is it
temperate? We'd like to explore that definition as well.
Chairman GILMAN. So do you intend,
then, to submit these suggestions in writing?
Mr. FOX. We will get these
suggestions to you.
Chairman GILMAN. We need them
before March 11.
Mr. FOX. I understand.
Chairman GILMAN. We'd appreciate
that. Ms. Chaves, have you worried that you will fund Mr.
Portman's bill at the expense of the GEF? I note the President
wants to increase GEF funding from some $30 million to $300
million in 1 year.
Ms. CHAVES. Mr. Chairman, the
request for the GEF for Fiscal Year 1999 includes in the first
instance substantial arrears which have arisen over the last
several years in our funding obligations to the GEF. Those
currently are $192.5 million and it is also a request for the
second replenishment of the GEF which would basically be funding
needed for the next several years of operation.
So, what we are looking for is
substantial funding for the GEF, we think this is a very high
priority for the Administration and its international
environmental programs and encourage you to fully fund our GEF
request.
Chairman GILMAN. Ms.
Chaves, will you support an amendment to the bill which would
give the Administration flexibility to offer debt relief to other
countries outside the 11 specified in the bill if unique
leveraging opportunities existed?
Ms. CHAVES. Yes. We would support
that flexibility within the current legislation. We have to look
at the legislation in the context of our current debt programs,
as well as the tropical forest objectives, and we think the
flexibility of a broader list of countries would be useful.
Chairman GILMAN. And one last
question of you, would you be able to use a full $400 million
authorized by the bill to support conservation projects?
Ms. CHAVES. The $400 million that
is suggested as authorization for appropriations is a number that
we would have to work within, I think, in the debt-reduction
context there is plenty of debt that we have to these countries.
The exact cost of the debt reduction will depend upon whether or
not we are using buy backs for the middle income countries, which
could have no cost to it or swap similarly, would have no
cost.
The debt-reduction costs are something
that we are assessing at this point and we don't have a final
estimate of what a final debt-reduction legislation in this area
would cost.
Chairman GILMAN. Would you be able
to provide that to our Committee before we mark up next week?
Ms. CHAVES. We will work with OMB
and OBM, CBO, and the Budget Committees are currently looking at
the scoring of debt reduction and we will do our best to have
information for you.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. We'd
welcome that. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I want to extend my congratulations to Mr. Fox. I
understand you have just taken over your position in the last
couple of months, I'm not sure of the date, as the Assistant
Administrator for Policy and Program Coordination and we wish you
well.
Mr. FOX. Thank you.
Mr. HAMILTON. Now, let's see. You
are not endorsing this bill today, is that correct?
Mr. FOX. We're not formally
endorsing it, sir.
Mr. HAMILTON. You're not opposing
it?
Mr. FOX. No, sir.
Mr. HAMILTON. You are reviewing
it?
Mr. FOX. That is correct.
Mr. HAMILTON. Where is the review
in the Administration hierarchy? How far has it gone? Who has
been consulted, who has not been consulted, and when are we going
to have an answer as to the Administration position?
Mr. FOX. To the best of my
knowledge, sir, the review has so far involved Treasury, OMB,
ourselves, and the State Department. Perhaps some others, but I
believe those have been the principals. We have been in quite
active communication. Knowing now that you have a markup, I'm
sure we will accelerate that process rather substantially.
Mr. HAMILTON. Are we going to have
the Administration's position prior to markup?
Mr. FOX. I personally can't
guarantee that, sir, but I understand that that will make a big
difference to you. I will certainly work for it.
Mr. HAMILTON. Well, I urge you to
push for that very, very hard. Who makes the decision,
finally?
Mr. FOX. As you say, I am brand
new to USAID, so I am not sure I can answer that question. Right
now it appears that the coordinator is OMB.
Mr. HAMILTON. I've been dealing
with USAID for 30 years and I don't know who makes the
decisions.
[Laughter.]
Of course, it involves just more than
USAID, I mean Treasury is involved, I imagine some other groups
too that I don't even know about but in any event, let me urge
you to convey to whoever does make the decision that if the
Administration wants to get on board here, they'd better get on
board. This bill is going to move. And we'd like to know whether
the Administration is going to be for it or against it or
straddle it. And we would like to know by the 11th of March.
Mr. FOX. I understand the
timetable.
Mr. HAMILTON. I think you have
made some constructive suggestions here as to improvements. I am
sure Chairman Gilman, Mr. Portman, and I will be glad to look at
those very, very carefully.
Now, there isn't anything in this bill
that causes you heartburn is there?
Mr. FOX. Only the open question
about what is going——
Mr. HAMILTON. Money. But
everything else looks OK. I mean the technical aspects of the
bill, the structure of the bill, the criteria, you've made a
suggestion with respect to that, but there really isn't anything
in this bill that really looks bad to you?
Is that correct?
Mr. FOX. That's correct.
Mr. HAMILTON. Basically, the bill
looks pretty good. Your primary concerns are budget and how it
fits in with your overall program, is that correct?
Mr. FOX. Yes.
Mr. HAMILTON. Do I understand that
the money that is sought in this bill would fit in under the GEF
request? Is that where it would come?
Mr. FOX. I have to defer to Ms.
Chaves.
Mr. HAMILTON. It's not
inconsistent with that program.
Ms. CHAVES. The
appropriations for this legislation would be complimentary to the
GEF appropriations.
Mr. HAMILTON. Complimentary
meaning it could come out of that fund?
Ms. CHAVES. We would hope that it
would not come out of the GEF funding request.
Mr. HAMILTON. Because that's fully
committed?
Ms. CHAVES. Because that is a very
high priority and it is an ongoing program which we have
internationally. It is already in place.
Mr. HAMILTON. So this figure that
we put into this bill, I think it is $400 million now, would have
to be, what, extra? Add-on?
Ms. CHAVES. This would be a
debt-reduction cost, is the way that it would probably be
presented in the budget. At this point, as you know the
Administration has requested specific amounts for Fiscal Year
1999 and we are not in a position to say that this should be an
additional amount at this point.
Mr. HAMILTON. Are you going to be
in a position to give us the budget analysis of this prior to
March 11?
Ms. CHAVES. That is primarily an
OMB issue, in working with the Appropriations Committees on the
Hill. I think we are very interested in seeing where the 602-B
allocations come out from a budgetary perspective and in working
with the Appropriations Committee as this legislation moves
forward.
Mr. HAMILTON. Do you have to have
the approval of all of that before the Administration can endorse
the bill?
Ms. CHAVES. We are currently
addressing the concepts in the bill. On the budget side, we do
have to work with the appropriators in terms of how this
fits.
Mr. HAMILTON. So, you do
endorse the concept of the bill? Is that correct?
Ms. CHAVES. That's correct.
Mr. HAMILTON. You're able to say
that much this morning, well that is helpful. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very
much. Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. BALLENGER. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. We are talking $400 million that we write off against
what other countries do? I am trying to understand better and in
my efforts in Central America. Planting trees. This is,
basically, what the whole idea is. In the town of Messiah, the
Peace Corps was doing it and I helped them out. Then in Puerta
Cabasas, it was USAID that we worked with to plant trees. And
then in Kelale, it was an NGO TechniServe. How in the world do
you figure out what it costs?
Ms. CHAVES. We have scoring
mechanism within the U.S. Government that is governed by OMB in
coordination with the Congressional Budget Office. Basically we
have a cost mechanism for debt reduction which looks at what we
expect the country to be able to pay before we do debt deduction
and then what we then expect them to pay after debt
reduction.
It is a net present value calculation
that takes into account the country risk for the country, we look
at the difference between those two calculations before and after
debt reduction and that gives us a budget cost figure for debt
reduction.
For the buy-back and swap program, we
basically would sell the debt either to a country or a third
party at our budget asset value so there is no cost incurred. And
those are the two different mechanisms.
Mr. BALLENGER. In other words,
would the cheaper that the country could do this reforestation,
would that mean that they would have to—does it behoove
them to do it as cheaply as possible, or, since it is Federal
money they are talking about, why be efficient because we are
going to get a debt buy back?
Dealing with the government, I
just wonder is that question sensible?
Ms. CHAVES. The local currency
funds that actually benefit the environment in the country again
depend on the instrument that is used. But under our
debt-reduction structure, the interest payments that would
otherwise come due to the U.S. Government on the remaining debt,
after debt reduction, would go into these funds, these tropical
funds, and those would be used by an organization locally that
includes environmental NGO's and academic experts in the country,
they would make the primary decisions on how the funds would be
used. The government participates in that but it doesn't decide
the use.
Mr. BALLENGER. Thank you, ma'am.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr.
Ballenger. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. I'd like to focus on
one provision of the bill and I know we have one of the
cointroducers of the bill right next to me. The one provision I
would like to get a better understanding of is the discussion of
open investment regime.
Mr. Fox, can you elucidate that term for
me?
Mr. FOX. I'm afraid I can't,
Congressman. It is not a part of the bill I have particularly
studied nor sought any opinion on.
Ms. CHAVES. Perhaps I can assist,
if you would like.
Mr. SHERMAN. Go ahead.
Ms. CHAVES. In looking for an open
investment regime, under this legislation, we are looking for
measures that would help to encourage new investment and open up
the environment for investment, to make it one that the U.S.
businesses can compete in and participate in, along with national
firms within the government. Traditionally, we have a list of
nine different objectives that we look for in this area. And we
have also, under the EAI, specifically worked with the
InterAmerican Development Bank to develop investment sector loans
and we've used that as basically the point that would check if
they have moved to improve their investment regime.
Mr. HAMILTON. Would the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Mr. HAMILTON. I don't think you
were here when Mr. Portman and I discussed that in broad outline.
The reason that criteria is in the bill really is in order to
make sure that U.S. businesses are not discriminated against. Now
there have been some questions raised about that decision and, I
think, Mr. Portman, I don't want to try to speak for him, he is
still here in the room, but I think both he and I have indicated
a willingness to work with people who have some objection.
I know it has been construed that it
could limit local environmental efforts and there may be some
other constructions on it. That obviously is not the intent of
the sponsors of the bill so I am quite sure we are prepared to
work with you to try to sharpen and improve that language. The
basic principle that is involved is we don't want discrimination
against American businesses, I think you would subscribe to that
as would others.
So perhaps it would be sufficient if we
just make an assurance that we will work with you on it.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. Just to
get an understanding of the concept. Does it focus on open
investments in and around the forests that we are protecting, or
would this relate to whether you could build a hotel in the
capital city of the country? It could be that it is best to work
this out later, but if you want to address that it might be
OK.
Mr. HAMILTON Well, the language in
the bill as it is now drafted is broad. It is in the section that
talks about eligibility for benefits and there are a number of
provisions under that. It says there must be put in place major
investment reforms in conjunction with the loan of the
appropriate international development bank for the region in
which the country is located, or else that country is
implementing or is making significant progress toward an open
investment regime. So it is quite broad language and I don't
think the words ''open investment'' are defined in the bill. If
there are concerns there, we will look at language there to
refine it.
Mr. SHERMAN Thank you,
Mr. Hamilton. I am concerned about two things. First, I don't
want this provision to undermine the pro-environment effect of
the bill and then, second, I am concerned that the weight of the
U.S. Government in international economics tends to be ''Please
open up your country to our investors,'' rather than ''Open up
your country to our exports.''
Exports provide jobs for American working
people and investment opportunities may actually undermine those
jobs. They may create products that can be reimported into the
United States. If this bill is trying to achieve some U.S.
economic objective, I hope that it would be one of interest to
our working families, rather than just to our investors.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr.
Sherman. Mr. Houghton. No questions?
Then I want to thank our panelists for
being here today and we hope that you will provide us with the
information we requested before our markup.
Our next panel consists of Ms. Tia
Nelson, Mr. Ian Bowles, and Mr. James Resor.
If they would be kind enough to come to
the witness table.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, before
our Administration witnesses depart, may I just make a comment
here?
Mr. Portman has reminded me—may I
have the attention of the Administration witnesses, just a moment
please? He reminded me that he went to the Treasury Department
specifically, Mr. Summers, in mid-1997 on this bill, and I'm
pleased to know that because what it indicates is that you have
had quite a bit of time now to work through this and we would
urge you to do everything you can to give us by markup time a
firm position on it.
Chairman GILMAN. Well, we welcome
our three distinguished private sector witnesses. Ms. Tia Nelson
is here representing The Nature Conservancy. TNC is one of the
largest, maybe the largest, private landowner in the United
States and abroad, dedicated to conservation, and Ms. Nelson is
currently a senior policy advisor for the Latin America and
Caribbean Division and is responsible for developing the TNC's
innovative joint implementation projects, a part of the Kyoto
protocol that I strongly supported.
I'm told by staff that Ms.
Nelson is responsible for much of the international environmental
legislation that was passed by the Congress in the late 1980's
and early 1990's, including the EAI and we welcome you back to
the Hill, Ms. Nelson.
Also, appearing before us is Ian Bowles,
of Conservation International. CI is one of the premiere
concentrations of scientists from around the world, dedicated to
protecting the world's environment. Prior to service with CI, Mr.
Bowles served in the office of one of our colleagues,
Congresswoman Claudine Schneider of Rhode Island, whom we had the
pleasure of working with on a number of environmental issues.
Staff informs me you also have a strong interest in the
environment and other key issues of concern to the people of
eastern Massachusetts and we wish you success in all of your
environmental endeavors.
And we also hear from a gentlemen
described as one of the world's foremost experts on
debt-for-nature swaps, James Resor, the director of World
Wildlife Fund's Conservation Finance program. Before joining WWF,
Mr. Resor received a solid business grounding as a management and
banking consultant. We welcome our experts and you may summarize
your statements which we hope you will do because our time is
short, your full text will appear in the record, and Mr. Bowles,
you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF IAN BOWLES, VICE PRESIDENT OF CONSERVATION POLICY,
CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL
Mr. BOWLES. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman, and let me note at the outset your leadership on
these issues over the last 15 years, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify here today in support of this
legislation.
As you said, I represent Conservation
International, a nongovernmental, nonprofit organization focused
on the conservation of biological diversity and, in particular,
tropical forests. We were founded in 1987 and currently have a
staff of more than 500 and conservation programs in more than 20
developing countries.
The Congress and this committee
have a distinguished track record in support of tropical forest
conservation. Starting in the late 1980's, the Congress
authorized the USAID to fund international programs. Since that
time, USAID has become a global leader among development agencies
in this field.
Congress has also been a critical leader
in international efforts to reform the multilateral development
banks, the World Bank, and the InterAmerican Bank and others and
key supporter of the GEF.
Congress has also been a leading advocate
of innovative mechanism such as a debt-for-nature swap to finance
international conservation efforts.
As you note, I worked before for
Congresswoman Claudine Schneider who worked with you, with
Congressmen Porter, Hamilton, and many others on early
legislation to promote debt-for-nature swaps through U.S.
development assistance.
This support was broadened out to include
support for the EAI, something my colleague, Tia Nelson, was a
key architect of when it was passed in the early 1990's.
Essentially, under the EAI, qualifying
Latin American countries' governmental debt to the United States
was reduced in exchange for a program of dedicating local
currency resources to local conservation programs. This is a very
positive step that we are supportive of.
Debt restructuring under the EAI tapered
off as the Credit Reform Act of 1990 came into effect.
Effectively, the Credit Reform Act raised a number of hurdles to
further debt restructuring. We can get into that in question and
answers if that is something you'd like to do.
Essentially, this legislation builds on
the positive experience of the EAI by targeting additional
countries for debt reduction and for transactions that would
allow for new funds to conservation.
I have three additional
observations before I close about this legislation. First that we
should view it, in my opinion, in the context of overall U.S.
efforts and congressional support for international conservation
of tropical forests. Two programs in particular are very
important, one is USAID's bilateral program for biodiveristy in
tropical forests, the second is the GEF which the United States
is currently in arrears to, as was noted in the earlier
panel.
Our support for this legislation is
conditional that no funds be taken away from these existing
programs which are very important.
Second, we're concerned about the debt
buy-back program and the amendment being put forth by the
Treasury Department. Not that this is a bad idea, but rather that
it could serve as a distraction away from the main business at
hand, which is the Treasury Department working with the Congress
and with organizations like ours to find the most efficient ways
to free up new funds for conservation in key countries.
I can get into that issue, if you would
like in question and answer.
The third is this legislation doesn't
tackle the broader point about the credit reform act and the debt
scoring mechanisms there. And I just want to note that and we can
answer questions about that.
In conclusion, congratulations to you,
Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. I would also like to recognize
Congressman Portman for his leadership and interest, also
Congressmen Kasich and Hamilton for their leadership in putting
this legislation forward. I will be glad to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bowles
appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr.
Bowles.
Ms. Nelson, you may put your full
statement into the record and summarize it, whichever you may
deem appropriate.
STATEMENT OF TIA NELSON, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR FOR LATIN
AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN DIVISION, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Ms. NELSON. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning
and your kind words. I would also like to echo Ian Bowles'
compliments to your for your leadership. It is much
appreciated.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.
Ms. NELSON. I am Tia Nelson,
senior policy adviser at the TNC. We have over 900,000 members,
about 1,300 corporate sponsors, and our mission is the protection
of biological diversity.
Less known is that we have an
international program working in 24 other countries, Latin
America, Caribbean, in the Asia-Pacific
region, there we have worked with local conservation NGO's to
help protect about 75 million acres of key biological
diversity.
Before I get into my prepared remarks,
which will be quite brief, I assure you, I wanted to share with
you a personal experience. It was about 10 years ago in Costa Rica.
Alvero Omana, then minister of the environment in Costa Rica, an
honorable leader early on in the environmental movement, he and I
were discussing the good deeds of a recent debt-for-nature swap
and Alvero said to me that he thought that it was important now
that we took the opportunities for conservation finance
exemplified in commercial debt-for-nature swaps and expanded them
to include bilateral government to government debt.
In my naivete I had no idea the kind of
challenge we would face in doing such a thing. It sounded rather
simple to me. I didn't know that it required an amendment to the
Foreign Assistance Act; I didn't know that it was against foreign
policy at the time. And in any case, the Conservancy endeavored
then to promote the idea in all the appropriate fora—USAID,
U.S. Treasury, State Department, and Congress. Suffice it to say,
we faced a lot of obstacles. Eventually, with the support of
Congressmen Bereuter, Torticelli, you, Mr. Chairman, and others,
we began to gain some momentum, and the Bush Administration
included this idea in a package of initiatives that was announced
prior to the President's trip to Latin America.
Working with a number of NGO's,
including my distinguished colleague sitting with me here today,
we crafted the environmental provisions of the EAI. It is my
proudest professional accomplishment, unquestionably.
Collectively, working with CI and WWF, we
have managed to link the issue of debt and its adverse effects on
rapid resource depletion. EAI is still a fine idea, and
Congressman Portman has revitalized it. His bill has provided us
a new opportunity to protect tropical forests and the vital
biological and economic wealth contained within them. The
Congressman has well described for you the importance of tropical
forests.
One of the keys to success from our
perspective is long-term funding. Debt-for-nature swaps like
those that will be made possible by the Portman-Kasich-Hamilton
bill, can be an important—indeed critical—tool for
ensuring long-term viability of tropical forest protection in
developing countries.
The proposed funds under H.R. 2870 would
operate quite similar to the original EAI but extend the
eligibility now to include Africa and Asia. It has great
potential to boost forest protection and we, at the TNC, strongly
support it.
Very significantly, U.S. money will be
leveraged. It will both enable and motivate local governments to
do more for themselves to create long-term funding mechanisms to
protect forests. It's the sort of results-oriented, sensible
effort the TNC likes.
I will just briefly share with you a
success story from the original EAI. You've heard some from
Congressman Portman about the efforts in El Salvador and
elsewhere. In Chile, the $19 million which will be dispersed
between the year 1992 and the year 2002 have, to date, benefited
54 local communities, many, many local NGO's, with an average
grant size of about $75,000. It has trained local farmers and
fisherman in habitat improvement in forest conservation. It has
helped protect unique local rainforest and provided innumerable
other benefits.
In Jamaica, the fund of $12 million has
approved 220 projects since 1993. The current focus is on
improving community capacity to manage resources in or near
protected areas. It has been quite successful.
TNC would like to thank
Congressmen Portman, Kasich, and Hamilton, and all the cosponsors
who are rapidly signing on for the reasons I have outlined.
Tropical forests are important; they are threatened; and this
legislation has the potential to help mobilize significant sums
to restore them.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nelson
appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very
much, Ms. Nelson.
Mr. Resor of the World Wildlife Fund.
STATEMENT OF JAMES RESOR, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION FINANCE, WORLD
WILDLIFE FUND
Mr. RESOR. Mr. Chairman, and
Members of the Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity
to appear here today.
I am James Resor of the World Wildlife
Fund. WWF currently supports conservation efforts in more than
100 countries around the world.
Today my testimony will focus on H.R.
2870, the Tropical Forest Conservation Act. I'd like to provide
WWF's perspective on why this legislation is truly vital to
strengthening the short- and long-term capacity to reverse the
loss of tropical forests in key countries.
Mr. Chairman, you and Congressman Portman
already have done a nice job of summarizing the importance and
benefits that these forests provide. So, I'll move into the
particulars directly.
This bill can provide urgently needed
resources for forest conservation in tropical countries by
allowing restructuring of existing bilateral debt owed to the
United States in exchange for local currency funds to conserve
tropical forests. The U.S. Government has already played a
leadership role in supporting debt-for-nature swaps and
conservation trust funds. For example, in the early 1990's, USAID
funds permitted WWF to purchase more than $30 million of
commercial debt in the Philippines and Madagascar. The proceeds
from these swaps continue today to provide ongoing support to
conservation efforts in those countries in addition to having
leveraged other funds from European bilateral aid agencies and
commercial sources to help conservation.
The EAI, upon which this bill
builds, restructured bilateral debt owed to the United States by
seven Latin American countries and has provided about $154
million from environmental funds, as others have already
testified.
H.R. 2870 can be another example of true
global leadership by the United States.
Based on WWF's experience with debt
conversions and trust funds in more than a dozen countries, we
think that H.R. 2870 offers some of the following benefits.
First, urgent and leveraged funding for conservation for some of
the world's biologically richest forests. Second, U.S. leadership
can serve as a model for some European and Asian nations to do
the same thing with the debt owed to them by some of the world's
poorer countries. Third, a proven means to get funds to local
conservation groups that are really trying to protect their
forests from going up in smoke or ending up as wood pulp to make
chop sticks or other kinds of things without much thought to the
environmental destruction. Fourth, is the strengthening of
democracy in nongovernmental organizations in these particular
developing countries by promoting accountability and some kind of
consensus building, and often bringing governments and
nongovernmental organizations together for the first time. Fifth,
we feel there is strong accountability to the U.S. taxpayer.
Delivering U.S. international assistance via these kinds of
environmental funds for the purpose of forest conservation is
really targeted to issues that we think Americans really care
about.
On behalf of WWF's 1.2 million members, I
really want to reiterate our enthusiastic support for this
legislation. Any fears or skepticism that U.S. taxpayer funds
might be misappropriated by distant third-world bureaucracies, I
think, can really be put to rest, because these environmental
funds are independent of governments and allocate their funds to
nongovernmental organizations through a very open and competitive
selection process. Furthermore, the U.S. Government always has a
representative overseeing that.
Again, WWF offers its support
for the legislation, however, this is as long as the funds for
its implementation do not come at the expense of important
existing programs, most notably, USAID's bilateral support for
biodiversity conservation, and the GEF.
Last, I'd like to comment on the timing
of this legislation because I think it offers opportunities for
the United States to exercise leadership in two different crises.
The first is the current financial crisis in
Asia, where Indonesia is a dramatic case-in-point. H.R. 2870
offers a basis for the United States to open a dialog with other
bilateral creditors and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to
require that the IMF programs be linked to more sustainable and
less destructive forestry practices and also include long-term
provisions for conservation funding and greater participation of
nongovernmental organizations and local citizens in general.
The second opportunity is for the United
States to encourage other bilateral creditors, the IMF and the
World Bank, to actively look for opportunities to apply the
debt-for-nature mechanism as outlined in the EAI and this
legislation, H.R. 2870, to countries that will participate in the
World Bank's Highly Indebted Poorest Country
Initiative—better known by its acronym, HIPC. However,
under its current implementation procedures, the HIPC initiative
seems to be missing the broader opportunity to help highly
indebted countries to achieve both debt sustainability and
improve environmental conservation.
We think that U.S. taxpayer investments
can be multiplied severalfold with the enactment of this
legislation and the further leadership of the Administration to
apply the legislation broadly as these two examples suggest.
And again, thank you very much for the
opportunity to appear before the Committee today. Mr. Chairman, I
would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Resor
appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr.
Resor, for your testimony.
Ms. Nelson, are there critical
parks and habitats outside the 11 countries designated in the
bill that would need some attention? Could you mention any of
those for us?
Ms. NELSON. Yes, there are. I
think the point of the effort to focus on those countries was to
try to leverage in some high biodiversity tropical forest
areas—some special focus in the first couple years of this
program. But, indeed, there are other countries and other
tropical forests equally in need of assistance.
Chairman GILMAN. Do you want to
mention any of those for us?
Ms. NELSON. There are lots of
them. The entire Andean region of Latin America—Latin
America being the area which I am most familiar with, so I'll
defer to my colleagues on Africa and Asia. There are some areas
in Central America, the Maya Corridor from Mexico to Guatemala to
Belize.
Chairman GILMAN. Did you want to
add something, Mr. Resor?
Mr. RESOR. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I
think we would point out two areas that are omitted at this point
from the legislation. They are, for example, countries in the
Congo Basin in Africa and also Indochina. And we hope that when
conditions permit that they might be eligible because they
certainly have globally significant forests.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.
And, Ms. Nelson, given your extensive
experience with these kinds of transactions, what are some of the
do's and don'ts you would want our committee to keep an eye out
for?
Ms. NELSON. Well, we've had a good
bit of success with the original structure under EAI which has
local NGO participation and a U.S. Government vote—and I
believe, if I recall correctly, veto power over disbursements if
there are any questions. And I think, you know, I'd emphasize
that strong NGO participation on those boards, and civil society
participation, transparency in the process by which proposals are
reviewed and moneys are disbursed are key.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank
you.
And, Mr. Bowles, as I understand, your
organization was founded by scientists for scientists. Should we
emphasize more scientific values in this legislation?
Mr. BOWLES. I think the
legislation as crafted addresses scientific issues. I might
return to your original question to Tia Nelson about
the——
Chairman GILMAN. Other areas.
Mr. BOWLES. —critical
habitats. It's in some ways a scientific question. This
legislation focuses on those tropical forests that are most rich
in biological diversity and facing the greatest threat and, as
such, includes implicit prioritization that we support. And I
think it in essence brings a science parameter into this
legislation that you are trying to focus resources. But in terms
of the body of the legislation, I think that it's good as it
stands.
Chairman GILMAN. I noted that the
boards of organizations to be established under this bill must
have some scientific representation. Should a majority of the
members on the board be comprised of scientists?
Mr. BOWLES. I think I'm going to
be best off to defer to my colleague, Tia, who has more direct
experience in the functioning of the boards under the EAI, if I
might.
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Nelson.
Ms. NELSON. Thanks, Ian. I don't
know the correct answer. I think it's important to have a
structure that allows some flexibility in determining who's on a
local board—with each area and each country and each fund
being slightly different. Having a good mix of policy folks,
local NGO's, and available scientists is important. But I
wouldn't suggest that you need to necessarily prescribe the
number of scientists that would be on a local governing
board.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank
you.
Mr. Resor, given your experience with
these transactions, what have we learned from the first
debt-for-nature swap in Bolivia's Bene biosphere reserve to
date?
Mr. RESOR. Well, I think in
general, looking back to the first swap which actually CI helped
broker in Bolivia—but we've had experiences in Africa,
Latin America, and Asia—is that what's very important at
the beginning is to get the right balance of participation and
oversight. And this legislation requires a majority NGO
representation as to how the funds will be spent and monitored.
Because, I think, as you know, in some of these countries
democracy is very fragile, and it's very important that there is
real transparency and accountability as to how the funds are
spent. And so, investing the time and effort at the beginning to
make sure that apparatus is set up is critical to the long-term
success.
Chairman GILMAN. As we move
forward on H.R. 2870, do you anticipate some other countries will
be likely to join in our efforts to support conservation?
Mr. RESOR. Other? From the other
bilateral—for example in Europe or Asia? I mean, from the
donor side?
Chairman GILMAN. Yes.
Mr. RESOR. Yes, I think there are
a lot of possibilities. We've had, for example, good success
getting support along similar lines from the Netherlands, the
Swiss, to cite a couple of examples. In Madagascar we were able
to arrange the donation of commercial bank debt from Deutsche
Bank and from Bank of America in several American countries from
the commercial side. But I think there's a lot of interest, and I
think that if the U.S. leadership can be fashioned in a way that
leaves it somewhat open and encourages them to come along, I
think there are a lot of opportunities.
Chairman GILMAN. In your
statement, you noted the fortunate timing of the legislation in
relation to the Asian financial crisis. Could you elaborate on
that?
Mr. RESOR. Yes. As you
know right now, the IMF is very busy trying to put together
various reform packages—I guess particularly in Indonesia,
South Korea, and Thailand. And using Indonesia as an example,
which I think we would all agree is a very high priority from a
tropical forest perspective, and there are a lot of problems with
conversion of forests to agriculture and unchecked logging
practices, as well as problems with what happens to funds. For
example, their reforestation fund in Indonesia. And it seems to
me that in the context of the IMF programs that the
conditionality of some of these issues be addressed in addition
to resolving the financial picture but really looking at the
longer-term economic and environmental stability.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I'd first like whichever panelist feels they have the
most cogent comments to address this issue that I have brought up
before of open investment regimes. Do you see this as a small
provision in the bill that could undermine its conservation
purposes?
Mr. BOWLES. Why don't I speak to
that. I think that if you step back from what's been happening in
tropical forests in the last decade, there is certainly some
evidence that unfettered investment is not necessarily going to
help conservation. In Latin America, mineral exploration
investments have more than doubled since 1990; log exports have
more than doubled since 1990. Clearly there is some linkage
between macroeconomic investment climate and conservation
issues.
I guess my overall comment is that it's
not a main part of this legislation. Essentially this legislation
is setting up a system to allow new funds to get created for
environmental conservation. I think if the Congress wants to
tackle the implications of investment reform, that might be
better done in the context of the authorization for the IMF and
the World Bank. I think there are some legitimate policy issues,
but this legislation, this is really a relatively minor part of
the overall thrust of the legislation. I hope that answers your
question. Thank you.
Mr. SHERMAN. With these
debt-for-conservation swaps, does title and ownership of the land
vest in the U.S. Government if our government is giving up the
debt, or would it instead be transferred to one of the
organizations that you represent?
Mr. RESOR. Let me answer that.
Actually, in the debt-for-nature swaps, what usually happens is
there's a reduction in foreign debt and a generation of local
funds to carry out the conservation projects in these developing
countries. There is rarely a transfer of land ownership. In other
words, we're not purchasing land through these mechanisms, which
is, unfortunately, the image that the title conjures up. So
really, the U.S. Government would not be taking title to any
assets. If there was any purchase of lands, it would likely go to
an NGO in that country that would hold it like you would have a
land trust in the United States that might hold an easement, or
land that is acquired for conservation purposes.
Mr. SHERMAN. So we would cancel
debt, and the host country would fund its equivalence of the EPA
or the National Park Service, or——
Mr. RESOR. Not exactly, no. The
local country, and again, under this legislation, the release of
funds would be to an entity that is separate from the host
government. It would have participation of the host government,
but it would have a majority of NGO's. And it would be that
administrating panel which would then decide which project
merited support. The idea is not merely to put support into
operational line items of the host country government, because
then we really haven't added any new funds. But really the idea
is to get it to local grassroots groups that are doing
conservation.
Mr. SHERMAN. When you say, ''doing
conservation,'' do you mean acquiring and permanently owning
land, or——
Mr. RESOR. Not necessarily
acquiring land; it may be, for example, trying to change forestry
practices, or ways to manage forests in a way that's more
conducive to conservation, training; it could be a whole host of
activities. And sometimes it may be strengthening a policy that
supports a particular park or reserve.
Mr. SHERMAN. But you have
a preference to having NGO's use the funds rather than the
regular agencies of the governments involved.
Mr. RESOR. Yes, very much, and I
think the spirit of the legislation really requires that, and I
think that's where we can take more comfort that there really is
going to be accountability to the U.S. taxpayer that the funds
won't essentially disappear into a black hole of a government. A
finance ministry might just merely subtract what it was going to
give to the local EPA.
Mr. SHERMAN. I mean we run into
this problem just as much, I think, with NGOs, or almost as much,
in that the country could reduce its own programs while giving
funds to NGOs. And while there is some skepticism as to the
honesty and effectiveness of government agencies in the Third
World, nongovernment agencies can also be sources of
ineffectiveness and corruption as well. So, I can see those
who've spent their lives in the nongovernmental sector preferring
nongovernmental organizations abroad—but I don't know if
they're any more effective than government.
Ms. NELSON. I think
it's——
Mr. RESOR. Clearly, we can't be
the most objective to comment on the value of NGO's, however, I
think in this case, what is very helpful is they are a panel
which includes the U.S. Government. So, you are having a very
open and competitive process. So if there are problems, you can't
hide them, basically. I think that's a big advantage for all of
us.
Mr. SHERMAN. You're right, if it's
an NGO, then the U.S. Government can be represented and that does
give us at least an eye to what's happening with them.
Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr.
Sherman.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses, Ms.
Nelson, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Resor, and our other witnesses who were
kind enough to appear before us today.
Ms. NELSON. Thank you,
sir.
Chairman GILMAN. Our committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the Committee
adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.]
A P P E N D I X
Insert "The Official Committee record
contains additional material here."
ANEXO IV
A continuación se presenta una lista indicativa
de instituciones que podrían proveer asesoría
sustantiva y apoyo técnico en los canjes de deuda por
naturaleza.
Información de Contacto de Consultorías
Financieras e Intermediarios.
Las siguientes organizaciones e
individuos han fungido como consultores o intermediarios en el
establecimiento de transacciones de canje de deuda.
Debt Advisory International, Inc.
1101 Connecticut Avenue,NW,
7th Floor
Washington, DC 20036, EE.UU.
Contacto: Michael F. Sheehan
Tel: (1-202) 463-2188
Fax: (1-202) 463-7285
E-mail: dai[arroba]debtadvisory.com
ING-Bank
Departamento de Mercados
Emergentes
P.O. BOX 1800
NL-1000 BV Amsterdam-Zuidost,The
Netherlands
Contacto: Jan Cherim
Tel: 31-20-576 8767
Fax: 31-20-576 8744
E-mail: jan.g.cherim@ingbank
Melissa Moye
2456 20th Street,NW, # 305
Washington, DC 20009, EE.UU.
Contacto: Melissa Moye
Tel: (1-202) 667-4770
Fax: (1-202) 234-7151
E-mail: mgmoye[arroba]aol.com
New York Bay Company, Ltd.
61 Broadway, Suite 1417
New York, NY 10006, EE.UU.
Contacto: Martin Shorter
Tel: (1-212) 344-5450
Fax: (1-212) 344-5575
Christine Parnière
21 rue des Templiers
78850 Thierval-Grignon, Francia
Contacto: Christine Parnière
Tel: 33-1-30-54-49-48
Fax: 33-1-30-54-45-01
Información de Contacto de los Acreedores del
Club de París.
Los siguientes acreedores bilaterales mantienen
programas de canje y/o venta de deuda
bilateral.
BÉLGICA: El Ministerio Belga de
Cooperación al Desarrollo
financia un programa de deuda por desarrollo mediante el cual
recompra créditos de exportación con garantías
públicas a la Office National du Ducroire (OND), la
agencia belga de créditos a las exportaciones. La
OND también opera un programa de venta de
deuda.
Ministerio Belga de Cooperación al
Desarrollo
Rue Brédorode 6
1000 Bruselas, Bélgica
Contacto: Martine Van Dooren
Tel: 32-2-519-06-14
Fax: 32-2-519-05-63
Office National Du Ducroire
40 Square de Meeûs
B-1040, Bruselas, Bélgica
Contacto: Luc Bruggeman
Tel: 32-2-509-42-11
Fax: 32-2-513-50-59
CANADÁ: La Iniciativa Canadiense de
Conversión de Deuda por Medio Ambiente
y desarrollo en América
Latina, administrada por la Agencia Canadiense de Desarrollo
Internacional (ACDI), ha convertido AOD en 6 países de
Latinoamérica. La mayor parte de la deuda
por AOD en los países afectados por desertificación
y sequía en el África ya ha sido cancelada. Los
créditos a las exportaciones adeudados al Consejo de
Fomento a las Exportaciones de Canadá no ha cumplido con
los requisitos para su conversión.
Agencia Canadiense de Desarrollo Internacional
(CIDA)
Piso 12, División de Políticas
200 Promenade du Portage
Hull, Quebec K1A 0G4, Canadá
Contacto: John Davies
Tel.: 819-953-2176
Fax : 819-953-3348
E-mail: john-davies[arroba]acdi-cida.gc.ca
FRANCIA: En 1992, Francia
anunció la creación del Fonds de Conversión
de Créances pour le Développement, el llamado Fondo
de Libreville, con 4 mil millones de francos franceses adeudados
a Francia por cuatro países de ingresos medianos
– Camerún, Congo, Costa de Marfil y Gabón. El fondo
estipula cancelaciones condicionales de deuda bilateral a
cambio de que
el gobierno deudor reserve fondos de contraparte destinados a
proyectos de desarrollo. Dada la devaluación del franco CFA, es posible que
Francia no se muestre dispuesta a considerar nuevas propuestas de
conversión bilateral (manejadas por la Caisse
Française du Développement) sino únicamente
ventas de
deuda (manejadas por la Tesorería Francesa), supeditadas
al establecimiento de un marco bilateral entre Francia y el
país deudor.
Tesorería Francesa
Secretaría del Club de
París
Dirección del Tesoro
139, rue de Bercy
75572 Paris Cedex 12, Francia
Contacto: Jerome Walter
Tel: 33-1-44-87-73-35
Fax: 33-1-53-18-36-04
ALEMANIA: El gobierno alemán
estableció un programa de deuda por naturaleza
después de la Cumbre de Río en 1992. Durante el
año fiscal 1997, el gobierno alemán reservó
$160
millones para financiar la cancelación de la
deuda OAD vía los canjes de deuda. El programa bilateral
es administrado por el Ministerio de Cooperación
Económica y Desarrollo (BMZ). Las ventas de deuda se
autorizan según los méritos individuales de cada
caso y mediante solicitud al Ministerio de Hacienda.
Ministerio de Cooperación Económica y
Desarrollo
Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche
Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ)
Referat 212
P.O. Box 120322
Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 40
53045 Bonn,Alemania
Contacto: Mr. Pieske
Tel: 49-228-535-3707
Fax: 49-228-535-3565
Ministerio de Hacienda
Referat IX B 4
Bonn,Alemania
Contacto: Dr. Ziese
Tel: 49-228-682-4678
Fax: 49-228-682-1897
ITALIA: Luego de la aprobación en 1996 de
una ley de hacienda que autoriza los canjes, el Ministerio
italiano del Tesoro se encuentra actualmente en el proceso de
formular un nuevo programa de canje de deuda.
Ministerio del Tesoro
Ministerio del Tesoro
Contact0: Fabrizio Costa
Tel: 39-06-47-61-38-43
Tel: 39-06-488-39-81
Fax: 39-06-47-61-39-32
E-mail: fabrizio.costa[arroba]djt.tesoro.it
LOS PAÍSES BAJOS: Los Países Bajos
(Holanda) mantienen un programa de canje de deuda bilateral
administrado por el Ministerio de Relaciones
Exteriores.
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores
Bezuidenhoutsweg 67
P.O. Box 20061
2500 EB La Haya
Países Bajos (Holanda)
Contacto: Ron Lander
Tel: 31-70-348-4304
Fax: 31-70-348-4303
ESPAÑA: España ha autorizado ventas
de deuda destinada a canjes según los méritos
individuales de cada caso.
Ministerio de Economía y
Hacienda
Ministerio de Economía y
Hacienda
Subdirección General de Gestión
de la Deuda Externa y
Evaluación de
Proyectos
Direción General de Política Comercial e
Inversiones Exteriores
Paseo Castellana, 162
28046 Madrid, España
Contacto:Alicia Montalvo
Tel: 34-1-583-73-98
Fax: 34-1-583-52-55
E.Mail: alicia.montalvo[arroba]sscc.mcx.es
SUECIA: La agencia sueca de créditos a las
exportaciones, EKN, autoriza ventas de deuda según los
méritos individuales de cada caso.
Consejo Sueco de Garantías a los
Créditos de Exportación
Exportkreditn‰mnden (EKN)
P.O. Box 3064
S-10361, Estocolmo, Suecia
Contacto: Hakan Lundburg
Tel: 46-8-701-00-42
Fax: 46-8-411-81-49
SUIZA: A través de la Oficina Suiza de
Reducción de Deuda, Suiza ha establecido programas de
conversión de deuda por desarrollo en dieciocho
países en todo el mundo.
Oficina Federal de Asuntos
Económicos
Bundeshaus Ost
3003 Berna, Suiza
Contacto: Michel Mordasini/Martin
Rohner
Tel: 41-31-324-08-86
41-31-324-08-68
Fax: 41-31-324-09-62
EE.UU.: La Oficina de la Iniciativa de las
Américas, administrada por la Tesorería de los
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica, es un programa de canje de
deuda bilateral que ha convertido deuda en 7 países de
Latinoamérica hasta la fecha. Los créditos de
exportación adeudados al Eximbank no han cumplido con los
requisitos para su conversión.
Tesorería de los EE.UU.
Room 5218
15th and Pennsylvania Avenue,NW
Washington, DC 20220, USA
Contacto: Maxwell Hudgins
Tel: 202-622-0212
Fax: 202-622-0218
E-mail:
maxwellhudgins[arroba]treas.sprint.com
GRAN BRETAÑA: El gobierno británico
se encuentra actualmente en el proceso de revisar su programa de
ventas de deuda, administrado por el Departamento
Británico de Garantías a los Créditos de
Exportación (DGCE).
Departamento de Garantías a los
Créditos de Exportación (DGCE)
P.O. Box 2200
2 Exchange Tower,
Harbour Exchange Square
Londres E14 9GS, Gran Bretaña
Contacto: David Morgan
Tel: 44-171-512-7334
Fax: 44-171-512-7140
Javier Alejandro Vitale Gutierrez
Est. Avanzado de Lic. en Cs. Pol. y Adm.
Pública
Facultad de Ciencias
Políticas y Sociales
Universidad Nacional de Cuyo
 Página anterior | Volver al principio del trabajo | Página siguiente  |