 I'm glad to speak after Kunal because after all the findings that he has found through research actually is reconfirmed by experience on the field. So I worked for the World Bank. Before that I was with IFC. I managed for three years the Government Private Sector Forum that was mentioned here of trying to bring together the public and the private sector together to discuss public policies. And after that I supervised basically the portfolio of IFC regarding public-private dialogue and now I'm with the World Bank Institute where we do exactly the same thing but using public-private dialogue for good governance rather than only private sector development. The World Bank Group has helped set up about 64 more public-private dialogues around the world. And it was very much focused on helping government have a pro-private sector policy and help with private sector development. More and more now within the World Bank we are using PPD for very different objectives and private sector development really for good governance to demand transparency to also ask the government to disclose information on their contracts with private sector on the use of public money. We have done some internal evaluations or independent evaluations about the effectiveness of this public-private dialogue. So over time from 2005 to last year we have results that public-private dialogue is effective and help business grow much faster, much better in the countries. In a study of 30 World Bank Group-supported public-private dialogue that we did in 2009 we found that the PPD's have sponsored about 400 reforms and help the private sector save about $500 million over a period of five years. And for a government or for a donor to support PPD it's very cost-effective because we're investing maybe $100,000 to $200,000 a year in the coordination function within the government or in the private sector or joint secretariat. And actually the return on investment is very high for every $1 that you invest you help the private sector save $5 that they can invest in other activities. In the context of this conference I would like to mention one study we did, we commissioned two years ago about how PPD is helping countries develop competitive industries in their countries and these are case studies from the Mediterranean countries. SBIR is really about people and I know that it is a very research-oriented and policy-oriented conference but really SBIR is you are dealing with people and the quality of the people are going to make basically effective SBIR. And these are some of the key risks that you are facing when you try to facilitate the discussion between the state and the private sector is who are the people sitting at the table. I would disagree with you that it brings only the business elite because when you bring only the business elite is actually you may reinforce vested interests or you may support market distortion. So we need to balance that with really enlarging and having the more business associations or even having groups that don't have any representation like the informal sector to come into the dialogue. You can also have sustainability issues especially when it is supported by a donor whether it's World Bank or GIZ or USCID. Once the donor stops the funding with the public-private dialogue continue and it's also about the capacity of the private sector to formulate its policy. We intervene in low-income countries, in developing countries, in countries where you have a strong man. So how do you make sure that the private sector is able to understand the problems that they have besides the operational issues that they are facing every day and then have evidence to support the problems that they want to talk with the government. And we have issues of one-man show. You may have a prime minister who is supporting the dialogue and then you have a new election coming, the prime minister has changed, the new prime minister is not interested in the dialogue. So all these questions of sustainability issues is one of the areas that we are facing in the programs that we are sponsoring. And of course you also have issues of institutional alignment. As Kuna said, the question is not to set up a new institution but how you can build the capacity of the existing institution so that they have the capacity to engage and discuss policy matters. So to mitigate this risk, what we do is to have a very structured, I mean, we try to have a methodological approach as how we set up and how we advise government in setting up this public-private dialogue. And the first step is really to have a proper diagnostic of the situation and trying to identify who are the key stakeholders. Again, we want to avoid having only the business elite to sit with the government. In almost all the countries where we intervene, the Chamber of Commerce is a corrupt institution. So if you only have the Chamber of Commerce who sits and discuss with the government, probably they are going to defend the interests of only a very limited group of business owners. And this diagnostic will guide us in the design of the public-private dialogue, where you should sit, who should be participating in the dialogue, what are the outputs that we can expect from the dialogue. And really from the start, we set up an M&E framework so that people know what they are trying to achieve with the public-private dialogue. And the actors can track over time how much they have achieved. And the World Bank comes along the way in providing capacity building to the actors, both from the private sector and the government in the way they interact with each other. So I don't know if you want to go into the details, but these are the types of tools that we're looking at. When we advise the government on the private sector and the setting up of a public-private dialogue, we look at four dimensions. First is, is there a political will from the government? Is the public authorities interested in the discussion? Second is, does the private sector have the capacity? I mean, are they organized to discuss with the government? The third dimension would be, do we have champions? And in countries where it's a bit dictatorial, even the reformers in the government don't want to be seen as reformers, because if they are seen as reformers, they are going to be, how you say that, assassinated politically. We can put it that way. And then do we have the instruments to make the PPD work? Where does the secreted sits, who are going to coordinate that, who are going to even take the minutes? You know, I mean, the capacity is so low in countries where we work that even taking the minutes or organizing a meeting, they don't have the budget, they don't have the people to do it. This is a case of Vietnam. It's probably one of, if not the most successful public-private dialogue that we have in the World Bank Group portfolio, where now after 10 years of IFC support, it's a fully sustainable organization with 15 large business associations supporting the secretariat and being very engaged in discussing with the government. And when we have about 12 key areas we are looking at, and then in all of these areas, you have risk, and you have tools to try to mitigate this risk. So we look at the mandate of the public-private dialogue. If you set up something informal, especially now that we move into civil society organizations and trying to get them to discuss with the government, you know, the people who are sitting there don't have any decision-making process. So how do you make sure that the public-private dialogue is effective or not? So what's the structure? Who should participate? Who is the facilitator? How is the secretariat organized? Do they have the funding to work? Do they have the, even, you know, IT equipment to work? Again, outreach and communications to make sure that it's not only the business elite that benefits from the reforms, the monitoring and evaluation. And most of the time when we come into a country, we set up a national public-private dialogue, but often what needs to happen, the reforms need to happen at provincial level or district level. So how do you make sure that the issues that the businesses are meeting in the provinces are really scared up to the national level? And then relevance to FDI. And has the PPD a role in managing and answering to crises and helping with past conflict impact? And then what's the role of development partners like the World Bank? This is a component that we have brought into our work. It's really to get the voice of the citizens and of informal groups into the public-private dialogue. And we try new tools like SMS polling or having people, because it was very much after the Arab Spring where you see the citizens basically taking up, you know, the revolution in the country. And now how do we get their voice into the dialogue with the government? So these are different tools that we share with the secretariat to make sure that it's managed properly. Actually, we really think that an effective SBR works only if you have an effective secretariat. You have a team that calls meetings, that track the progress of the reforms, that make sure that the process is inclusive, unless the secretariat is effective. Basically, we don't think that the SBR can be effective. And we have some tools and techniques. It's not as sophisticated as the William and Kunal are doing, but what tracking basically is the secretariat properly organized. We're tracking if they have an impact on the reform process, because it's very difficult to actually make an attribution that because there is a PPD, you have growth. Now, a lot of people from the other part of the World Bank is already attacking us about how do you, you know, how dare you claim the result on that while we have all this policy and all these landing programs going on. So we try to make this connection when a reform is directly advocated by the public-private dialogue platform. And then we claim for this result. So these are evaluations tools that we use to measure the effectiveness of the organization here, impact on the reform. So these are the type of indicators that we're looking at in terms of outcomes and impact on the economy. First, if there is a regulation or a law that is advocated by the PPD, then if it is enacted or there is a change that has happened thanks to the discussion that taking place, then we take credit for this one. In some case, we also look at economic impact in terms of job creation, in terms of inclusion of this franchise group in the value chain, of women in the value chain, looking at new investment when it is, for example, a sector focus, public-private dialogue. We can really set it up for, I don't know, to improve the competitiveness of the coffee industry in the country. So anything that happens along the value chain, basically, we credit it to the public-private dialogue. So the new directions that we are going within the bank is we're looking now at working with the OECD, which is a secretariat for the global partnership on effectiveness and nationalized part of the Busan process of elaborating an indicator to measure collaboration between the government and the private sector. Again, really increasing citizens' voice in the public-private dialogue. And the third direction that we're looking at is really how can we also use public-private dialogue to demand transparency from the private sector. Because when we're talking about public-private dialogue, it's about getting accountability from the government, how to make sure that they disclose information, but actually the private sector has also its share of work to do to be more sustainable and be transparent. I finish my presentation. Last thing, if you are interested in public-private dialogue, there is a website where we have all the case studies, all the tools, and even a Facebook page. Not yet Twitter, but we can.