 Now we talk about child malnutrition and social protection. And I want to introduce the next panel to you. Dr. Elizabeth Christiansen from University of Ottawa. Welcome up. Here comes Betsy. She works at the School of Psychology and is a measurement specialist within population and health. And we'll talk about child malnutrition. Also welcome Mr. Armando Barrientos. Oh, welcome. Professor and research director at the Brooks World Poverty Institute. Please be seated. And we'll talk about social protection programs, what that is, a mega trend in the world right now. And also welcome Iara Costalete, a research associate at the South-South Corporation Research and Policy Center in Brazil. Fled in from Brasilia last night, who will talk about South-South Corporation. Well, as we speak, every minute, every hour, children die out of malnutrition. Yes. Actually, our stats show that 300 children die every hour because they don't receive enough food. And also, even if children do not die, they can be permanently impaired. Unnutrition represents a huge loss of potential. Children don't grow as much as they can. They don't develop intellectually if they don't get enough food. They often don't attend school or don't finish school. And it's been shown that lifetime earnings are severely impacted by undernutrition in early childhood. So this is an extreme challenge. It's an extreme challenge. Can I have the slides move? Yes, you can move it with this. Oh, I can move it. There you go. OK. And it's been estimated that almost half a billion children around the world are at risk over the next 15 years. So it's a huge, huge issue. And what does it look like? How is the situation today in the world? Well, the situation has improved a little. And talking about the whole burden of undernutrition, in 2009, more than a billion people were undernourished. The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates now that it's down to a mere 900 million. So we still have a huge problem, a huge problem. We have not by any means even approached the Millennium Development Goals. You have looked a little bit about the preschool and school feeding programs. How do they work and where and what domains? OK. Basically, these programs for young children, they actually start prenatally. But the ones we've looked at started about age three months. And we've also looked at programs where children are fed in school. And for young children, they can be given in the daycare, in preschools, in what they call feeding centers, which you're probably familiar with. Or they can be delivered to the home. And for school-aged children, they're just given in school. And as a perk for attending school, sometimes they draw children to school. And how does it work? Does it work well? That's a good question. It works sort of well. It can work a lot better. For example, for the preschool feeding programs, we should see a large impact on growth. Children should grow more. They should gain more weight, gain more height. But in fact, we're only seeing in preschool feeding programs a gain of about a quarter of a centimeter a year. That's not huge. It's something, but it's not as much as it could be. And in terms of intellectual performance, we are seeing that children who are fed walk earlier, they talk earlier, and they run earlier. And also, there is some impact on later intellectual development, about six points in IQ in one study. There could be a lot more. And school feeding, it has been shown that children who are fed, especially at breakfast, there's very strong evidence for feeding early in the day at school. They attend more. They're more motivated to learn more, interested in their surroundings. And they especially seem to improve in math. Oh, really? Yeah, it's quite interesting. There's very strong evidence for improvements in math performance, probably because of the attention needed and the frontal, the executive functioning. But you say they grow, but they don't grow enough? Well, basically, we know from the good studies, the studies that give a lot of energy, that supervise well, that really follow up and work with the families and the communities, that they can grow more, you know, a centimeter a year, rather than a quarter of a centimeter a year. So is more food needed, or are there other circumstances? Well, basically, what seems to happen is that several studies we've looked at actually assess dietary intake. So they talk to the parents. And the parents are remarkably honest about what happens to the food. In preschool feeding programs, we found when the food is delivered to the home, children actually only benefit from about a third of the supplement. When it's given in daycares and preschools, children benefit from about 75% of the supplement. So where does the rest go? Well, there's the rest go. That's a good question. Sometimes, and this is natural for a family, parents redistribute the food within the family. So instead of giving it just to the one child who's supposed to receive the feeding, they share it. And you would too, naturally, as a parent. You would share it with all of your children. And sometimes with the adults who are also hungry. When it's given at school, they may give the child less food at home. And children may also eat less of the supplement. If it's a high volume food, they may not be able to eat it all, or it may reduce their hunger later. And also, we found what people euphemistically refer to as pipeline breaks. We all know about those pipeline breaks, probably. The food just doesn't even get to the targeted families or to the schools. Somewhere along the line, someone else siphons it off, or sells it, or something like that. We have less evidence for that. It's harder to prove. But parents in one study in Brazil, one program in Brazil, a national program, said that they only received the milk and oil 50% of the time. So on half of the days that they were supposed to receive it, they did not get it. So it goes somewhere else. It goes somewhere else. But are there some programs that are really good and working? I mean, what works? What works is, I think what works, and this has been constantly emphasized throughout this day. I've heard it from every speaker, work with the community. Develop the program in the community. Don't just come in with an already developed supplement. Work with the community. Talk to the leaders and the parents and even the children about what will work, how it will work. Get them to buy in and to own the program. Develop foods that are culturally appropriate and that taste good and clearly supervise. Monitor at every step along the supply chain. I probably don't need to tell you that, but there are many places where the supply chain can be broken. Monitor. Talk to the parents about what their child is taking in and how they could do better. What else works? Targeting the most undernourished children. I think one of the previous speakers mentioned that aid isn't always getting to the poorest people. Well, we know that if the poorest and most undernourished children are fed, they can do better. In fact, the most undernourished children respond better to feeding. They are the ones who develop better, who grow more and to respond more intellectually. And also, give a very high proportion of the recommended daily allowance for energy. Those programs that are most successful give at least 40, sometimes 60 or 70% of the recommended energy. And that is because you allow for the redistribution, which doesn't always impact on the child, but it can also impact the whole family. So by giving more of the energy you're allowing for that redistribution, you do have to consider the child's age and breastfeeding needs. You don't want to disrupt breastfeeding. Foods should be plattable, I already mentioned that, and energy dense, so a high amount of calories and protein and micronutrients for the volume. And consider giving the food as a snack. If it's pitched to the parents and the community as a snack, they're not as likely to cut down on the regular meals. And in the school, give the food early in the day so that the children can be more attentive and motivated to learn. Thank you so far. Armando, you have looked into social protection programs. Could you first explain what you mean by social protection? Yes, there has been amazing growth in developing countries, both middle income and low income countries, of programs providing direct transfers in cash and sometimes in kind to families in extreme poverty. The core concept behind them is that if you can provide reliable and regular transfers to families that improve their nutrition and improve their capacity to organize their productive resources, that is more likely to have a sustainable impact on poverty. Now, there are kind of differences in the way in which we use the term social protection in European countries and when we look at developing countries, I guess Europeans would be particularly, would associate social protection with contributory social insurance programs. In developing countries, the social protection programs that I introduced tend to be tax financed rather than financed from contributions from workers and have the direct objective of addressing poverty. So in trying to make the translation to kind of a European context who we're talking about in developing countries is an amazing growth of social assistance. And that could be, for example, could you describe a program for a family? You get an extra amount of dollars every week? Yes, I mean, roughly, and this is very kind of rough rule of thumb from my kind of experience of learning about different programs is that on average, the transfers amount to about 20% of household consumption. So it's a supplement to their income and their consumption rather than kind of a very large sum. But the other point to have in mind is that most of these programs have developed through kind of domestic policy discussions. So they tend to be very different, very diverse across different regions. If you look at Latin American countries, for example, there has been a very rapid growth of what they refer to as conditional cash transfer programs where the transfers are given to families in extreme poverty on condition that children are at school for 85% of the time on condition that the household members take advantage of primary health care. And sometimes they also include some kind of nutrition supplement, as we were discussing. But in other countries, for example, in India, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme provides a guaranteed of 100 days on demand for families with unemployed households in the rural area. So there are the transfers associated with work. You said it's been an explosion of social protection programs among donors. Why is that? Why is that? Well, let me sort of try to quantify the explosion first. From the year 2000, more or less, starting from a very low base, many countries have introduced larger scale programs. We estimate through a database of social assistance programs that we collect in Manchester University. We estimate that by the year 2010, something between three quarters of a billion and one billion people in developing countries live with some other member in the household who had access to one of these transfers. So it's a very rapid growth, if you imagine, from a very low base in 2000 to reaching, say, one billion people by the year 2010. Now, the interesting thing is why it is happening. And I think that, firstly, many developing country governments are committed to poverty reduction. And I think they have come to an understanding that economic growth and basic services are essential to address poverty. But that is not sufficient to reach the groups which face the greatest social exclusion. That in addition to improving basic services between discussing, providing opportunities for employment and self-employment, it is also important to reach and include those groups which are in extreme vulnerability and extreme poverty. And the other point which I would add is democratization because, for example, in Africa, over the last 10 years or so, the number of governments that are not elected are, I think, three in Latin America after the spate of dictatorships in the 1980s and early 90s. We've had a very solid democracy since then. And I think democratization helps those groups that are excluded from, first of all, finding a voice and secondly, getting a response from governments. Yes. But so it's a mega trend, yes. But how effective is it? It is very effective. I mean, anti-poverty transfers are probably one of the most evaluated or most rigorously evaluated interventions in development. That has, the reason for this, the kind of strengths and robustness of evaluation has really to do with politics. In many countries, including European countries, given transfers in cash to people in poverty, has a resistance, especially from better off groups and others, so that as a means of addressing that political resistance, evaluation systems can help to pave the way for kind of stable and sustainable interventions. But in terms of impact, I got one slide that I wanted to show you, which relates to what Elizabeth was saying. In Mexico, in 1997, the government introduced a program called Progresa, which is now called Opportunidades, providing transfers to families with children of a school age in rural areas and in extreme poverty. The government, because of the kind of political resistance which I was referring to just now, the program agency introduced very tough evaluation systems for the program. And also they took advantage of the fact that the program could not be introduced in all parts of Mexico at the same time. So it was introduced gradually. So in 1998, there was one expansion of the program, and then some communities that were meant to be incorporated into the program could in fact not be incorporated until two years later in 2000. So you have an ideal situation where you can look at eligible health schools in 1998, what happened to them in 2000, and you can compare those that were incorporated in the program in 1998 and those that only were incorporated in the program in 2000. And what you have here is an indication of the impact of the program. If you measure the height for age and you make a comparison between those that were incorporated in the program in 1998 and those that came into the program in 2000, the difference is one centimeter. And that is hugely, yeah, it's hugely indicative of the impact of the program on the long-term nutrition of the children, which as Elizabeth was saying, has implications for education and ultimately their whole lives. So if you would give recommendation when it comes to social programs, social protection programs, what would that be for donations or for international aid? Right, in terms of the role of international aid, if I could use Hollywood speak, what we're talking here is really a supporting role, rather than a star role, right? Because I think aid has an important role to play, but it's also a very limited role in the sense that financing the transfers for people in poverty must be financed out of domestic resources, right? In the long-term, that is what generates the legitimacy, the sustainability associated with the programs. The role of international aid though is important, first of all, in trying to reduce the setup costs, particularly for low-income countries. These programs require an investment in capacities, social workers, program agents, it requires information systems, it requires registration, both birth registration for children and registration for adults too. It requires means of transferring cash, financial systems, and it requires monitoring and evaluation. All those things are really expensive and they are a barrier, particularly for low-income countries, and the experience of most countries with large scale programs has been that aid has facilitated that process initially. And then, on top of that, you have two other important roles for aid. One is to finance research on these programs. Again, it's self-serving, I'm an academic, so I would say that, but that is really important. It's always said, and true. And then, I think, how to transfer the experiences from southern countries to other southern countries, and I think Yara will speak on that issue in a minute. I think that is really important because there is a lot of learning that needs to take place across the development regions on how to make these programs effective and sustainable. Yara, SouthSouth Corporation, what is that? Could you give an example of that? When we talk about SouthSouth Corporation, we're talking about a multi-faced phenomenon. We're talking about several modalities, including it. I think the one that is most of the interest today here is SouthSouth Development Corporation, but I think we have to see how diverse these events are in international relations. And I brought some examples. We usually refer to it as any type of cooperative relation, engaging a socially organized group that is based in the South, that is in developing countries. So, a socially organized group, maybe a state, or a firm, or an NGO, right? And we're talking about, you have some examples, those coalitions among developing countries, right? Like the IBSA initiative or the BRICS, it's at SouthSouth Coalition, SouthSouth Trade and Investments, Cooperation in Science and Technology, SouthSouth Policy Exchanges, Regional and Regional Integration, and SouthSouth Development Cooperation. All of those modalities are usually treated as SouthSouth Cooperation, but I think what is important to mention is that differently from NorthSouth Cooperation, or NorthSouth Cooperation, SouthSouth Cooperation does not necessarily result from an interdependence among these countries. Actually, it is an instrument to faster interdependency among them. So, this is important because we're talking about links in multiple areas that these countries want to build with each other because they believe that their relationships will be more equal and will bring more benefits to both parties. But we're talking about an expectation that has to be proved empirically in a case-by-case approach. So, Brazil, for example, your country has this kind of SouthSouth Cooperation. What could that be, given examples? Yeah, I just brought some examples here. This is just for you to see that SouthSouth Development Cooperation is the interface among SouthSouth Cooperation and International Development Cooperation. And I think the IPSA case brings all those modalities, or most of them, right? The IPSA is a dialogue forum engaging Brazil, South Africa, and India that was created in 2003. And it has this aspect of the most important one relates to political coordination. These countries meet in multilateral meetings before the meeting, so they have a consensus on how they will vote in an issue in the multilateral setting. This is the most successful part of it. We have a market integration, but it's not going very well, actually. There is an attempt to foster policy exchange in several areas, including in education, social development, and health. But it's working very slow because we're talking about bureaucracies, they're self-referenced, and they are not able to exchange things with each other, except in some cases, and the exceptions are in science and technology. And I mean, it's very difficult to foster this process because of the type of these bureaucracies. We have put there a multi-stakeholder engagement. We have forums engaging business, women, parliamentary editors, and others. And we also have the trust fund, the IPSA fund, which is a modality of South-South Development Cooperation. It's these countries put $1 million each every year for funding projects in less developed countries, and there are very interesting initiatives in there. So when it works, you pointed out that some political coordination works, and some of them didn't work. When it works, why does it work then? Why it works in political coordination? No, when it works, how do you make it work, or what are the main things where it works, and why is that? Well, I think that you need to really have a coordination. If this is something about international cooperation in general, it has to be spontaneous. Sometimes things are induced, and they won't work if the induced partners don't understand why that is important. So I think in the case of political coordination, we're talking about diplomatic levels. They are more aware. They actually lead these initiatives, right? So it's just to give an example about South-South Development Cooperation. I just brought there some opportunities and challenges. Of course, we have additional resources for international development cooperation. We're talking about similar challenges, and I mean, all developing countries face the challenge of developing in a politically correct world. You know how differentiated that is, because developed countries didn't develop respecting human rights or environment, and you know that. So the chance of learning with other Southern countries facing these same challenges is bigger. We're talking about relations of trust, and this trust comes from the fact that it's not driven by offers, and that the demands from less developed countries are considered, and that creates a relationship of trust, and all the things about non-interference in domestic affairs, and listening to what the country wants. Of course, there is a challenge in that, because what an elite wants is not actually what the people want. So working with both of those dimensions is very important to foster not only official cooperation, but also cooperation among civil societies in Southern countries. And the thing about the inspiration, that thing that if Brazil did it, we can do it, that was crucial for instance for the cash transfer program in Ghana, right? It was very important for the minister to tell her people that Brazil did it, and this created a condition for acceptance of the program. And then we have some challenges, and I think that going back to what does not work, the feeling I have is that best practice transfer does not work, and this is what happening in South-South Development Cooperation. It's very important for us to remember that one of the factors that has favored this reemergence of South-South Development Cooperation was the attempt of traditional donors to reconstruct their legitimacy in international development cooperation after neoliberalism and the problems of the social impacts of economic globalization. So these countries and agencies started inducing South-South Cooperation as a best practice transfer and contexts are very particular. This is very important to remember. Cash transfers in Brazil worked, one of the reasons for it to have working was that the Brazilian government has a very powerful tax structure. So you can't disconnect results from the legal and political and the social context and economic context of these countries. So I think this is one of the biggest challenges, and I don't know if I have time to tell me again. You have, yeah, a little time. Okay. And I put the thing about coordination. I have some data here from the Brookings Institute that it's scary to know that, for instance, in 2007 recipient countries spent 263 days a year receiving international delegations. I mean, we're talking about restricted human resources in poor countries that are being allocated to receive international missions. And this data is in general, and it was in 2007. You can imagine after that several cooperation agencies have been created, including in southern countries. And I think the greatest challenge is for this coordination to happen. And remembering that southern countries emerging donors are no different from traditional ones in the sense that South-South Cooperation is used as an instrument in foreign policy related to diplomatic purposes and economic purposes as well. And in these countries, we don't have constituencies supporting aid as you have in here in Sweden clearly. So interests are fundamental to create these constituencies at home. But the thing is, how do you guarantee a constituency and at the same time, defectiveness in field? And for that, coordination would be very important, but they don't want their names to be dissolved in the middle of a multi-stakeholder initiative. They really want to use it as an instrument further. It's a dilemma, right? It's a dilemma, yes. I think we will let now a little bit earlier questions and remarks from the audience if we have the microphones. We have one here because I... And we have you there, lady. And then, what about the students over there, huh? Some questions, remarks, more than those two? Three, okay, please. I'm just going to give three example of South-South Cooperation because in the mid-2010s, 2000, Rwanda was a recipient of support from Cuba. We did like really a specialist for the main hospital, King Faisal Hospital. And South Africa paid actually the salaries of these people to come for a given number of years. And that was, I thought it was a very important South-South Cooperation. The countries in Sadeg, all the countries, the students would study at local fees when they are admitted in South African universities, which is very, very important. And the third example is with my academy. Most of the issues that you outlined here being health, mostly in the health issues like nutrition are science issues. So science is very, very important at a global level. So there are many countries that are lagging behind in science and technology. So the Academy of Science for Developing World has worked with China, India, Brazil, Malaysia, Mexico, and Argentina. So these countries have accepted to do a South-South Cooperation Science and Technology. So they pay the full tuition, the full tuition and twice the academy pays a ticket to go from the country of origin to China, to Brazil, to Malaysia to study in back home. And that's the... Thank you. Where would it go? Do you have a microphone? Yeah. My name is Gunnel Axelsson, a counter-church of the Sweden International Department. And we're very happy to hear the presentation, especially by Amanda Bariantus, because we think social protection is really a very important area of development cooperation that has been, I would say, very much neglected. And I think it's the potential in terms of poverty reduction and attrition and school enrollment and everything is quite... quite big. Now, Armand, you said that the role of development corporations is important but limited. Going back to the picture that Miguel showed this morning about the different sectors within allocation of social expenditure within the social sectors, it was said here that water and sanitation was the poor cousin. I mean, social protection wasn't even at the picture. I wonder if this is perhaps a question to Miguel where the social protection was in the picture but so small we couldn't see it. And if so, or anyhow, why is it that this potential oil is now not fulfilled today? But it has exploded, hasn't it? But that is domestic finance. I mean, it was emphasized that mostly it's domestically financed. Okay, and then we had there. And then comments from you. Hi, my name is Sophie and I'm from the Institute for Security and Development Policy. My question is about South-South cooperation with a little bit of experience from the Pacific Islands when talking about post-2015 agendas. The main thing that they had learned and were passionate about from the MDGs was the lessons of mistakes learned in the Caribbean and Asia, Asian countries. And they asked with a particular emphasis to learn about previous mistakes from other countries, more so than best practices. How much in South-South cooperation is there an emphasis on being very honest about mistakes made and how to avoid them then on best practices going forward? Thank you. So who wants to start commenting? Armando. Okay. On the question about why is that sort of the share of aid that is going to social protection is so small, I have kind of three main points. The first one is that this structure of aid is really not suitable for institution building because it's too short because it's usually project-based and because usually the reason that level of discussion and dialogue between the donors and the recipients. So the term structure is perhaps the most significant one. You don't build institutions in two or three years and really so the expansion of social protection in developing countries is not just an intervention as a development intervention, it's very different to say addressing malaria or addressing kind of water issues. What you need is to build perhaps long-term institutions that could address poverty now and prevent poverty in the future. And I think there is a kind of mismatch there between the way that they set up and the way in which the requirements for supporting the expansion of social protection. There is also I think a political issue in that our kind of perception of aid is very much to do with emergency assistance or humanitarian assistance. If we look at the pictures that come up on TV, depicting aid is usually someone kind of lifting kind of sacks of rice and sort of giving it to people. And of course the humanitarian emergency assistance are very important, but having longer term institutions addressing poverty might actually be better in a sense and that has been the experience of donors in South Sahara and Africa where they have really supported social protection as a means of moving away from annual rounds of emergency assistance to more stable ways of addressing problems of food insecurity and nutrition. So I think those are the reasons there are of course other more technical ones. There is a difference between loans and grants. I don't think it makes sense for developing country governments to borrow money to provide transfers. So we're looking at really grants rather than loans. And there is the issue of absorption capacity, especially low income countries have a limited capacity to absorb additional funds. There are kind of prudential issues associated with it too. And those coming to play as well. So for all those reasons, that's why I kind of my kind of way of looking at it is that aid has an important but very specific limited role in advancing social protection. Do you have anything to add on that? No, please. Thanks for the question. I think that's the point, but at the same time, I mean I'm sorry I said about the bureaucracies being self-referenced, but I'm still I'm self-referenced as well. I come from a way of country, as you know, it's a big country street. We still trying to find out how things work inside Brazil in the cooperation, in the South South cooperation. But there is this example of Brazilian national policies. Now that it's more mature, it's not being induced anymore by traditional donors. There is a process of ownership, right? Concerning the exporting of Brazilian experiences. But what is happening is that policies are being exported as an instrument to strengthen them at home. So it's, the way they are exported is more like about propaganda because the aim is to strengthen them at home. So in this process, there is a, exactly that's what you said, learning about bad experience, not so good experiences might be a lot more important. I mean, we have this program that is being exported today to Africa, the food purchase program. There are some not so good experiences in the state of BAOE, for instance, the poorest state in Brazil of producers not being able to deliver the food to the schools because they have no transportation. I mean, why? What happened, how could, maybe we have examples of a community that faced exactly this challenge and what did this community do to overcome this challenge in Brazil? I think these experiences would be more important and maybe this is the path for exchange. And this is exactly what we are not having in South-South cooperation. I mean, one mutual learning, maybe putting someone from the state of BAOE to talk to people in Africa and in exchange would be more effective, right? But I always like to insist that we are not talking about a technical issue. This is a political issue after all. So how do we deal with the political aspects of it? I wanted to change subject a little bit having you from Brazil here. We have new donor countries like Brazil and China. How would the three of you say that this changed the situation among donors? Is there a difference now? I want to pick up on that. Armando. Yes, I do. I think it makes a great deal of difference certainly in terms of the policies of the G20, the involvement of countries like India, South Africa and Brazil in discussions on social policy made a great deal of difference in terms of the orientation, for example, of the kind of global stimulus package in the context of the crisis. So I think that has made a difference. The other kind of area where it has made a difference is that not everything has to go up to Washington or kind of European capitals and then down again. And in the process you perhaps lose some of the kind of some of the good things about kind of policy diffusion. I think that is really important. Yeah, I was sort of mentioning the case of cooperation between Brazil and South African African countries on social transfers, for instance. And she mentioned that South Africa's cooperation is best when you have a mutual learning process. The way that that program works is really interesting. Brazil is a huge country, 160 million people, vast territory. Now, Brazilians can always find a municipality in Brazil that has conditions similar to those countries in South Africa that want to introduce a social transfer program. So in the case of Ghana, they could find municipalities with similar conditions. So policy makers from Ghana that visited Brazil said, well, yes, of course we can do it because the conditions in terms of infrastructure and so on are similar. So that particular program, the Brazil Africa program has been extremely influential, not just on Portuguese speaking countries in South African Africa, but across kind of West Central and Eastern Africa in persuading those countries that it is feasible to introduce that. So I think that that is important. I think also there is a greater emphasis as a consequence of the participation of the South Africa, Brazil and India on a focus on social policy perceived more broadly than just very specific interventions on say health education and social protection. Much more of a systems approach, which some of the presenters earlier kind of referred to it as a good thing. But has this changed in any way the way that traditional donor countries act? Or is it just that we have new players and they play another game? Or have they changed the play as a whole? I think in my experience it's really intrigued them in the sense of what are they going to do that it's different. For example, I'm about to start the program in May looking at Brazil's development model and its implication for Africa. This was funded by DFID because they really don't know very much about how the Brazil development model works. And they want to see how it would operate in the context of South African and African countries. So I think there is a kind of, they're intrigued as to what these countries can do that they have been successfully doing in the past. Any comments, questions? All right, so we have, who was there? Okay, one, two, three. Maybe, okay, maybe I'll be first. Can I start? Yes, sure. Two comments. First, on the statement on the role of aid and saying that domestic financing has to be more important than aid, I think whenever you do that statement, you need to qualify it according to which country you're talking about. In countries where they basically can afford the intervention we are discussing, of course domestic financing has to play a major role. But in countries where they cannot afford the intervention we are discussing, aid has of course quite another role to play. And we're talking here about countries from a GDP of 10,000 US dollars down to 500 US dollars or 5,000 US dollars and then down to 500 US dollars per capita. And the capacity of a country with 500 compared to a country with 10,000 is of course completely different. So that's one point. And then also just to say on the on the south to south cooperation, I think we need to distinguish between cooperation and aid. And I just want to re-emphasize what you said that I think if we're talking aid, I think we should have no illusions that countries just because they are geographically placed somewhere or if they have a GDP that is slightly different will have different ideas about using aid as a foreign policy instrument and serving their own interests. So from the receiving side you need to be just as suspicious I think towards donors whether they are Southern donors or Northern donors. Thank you, Abby. Just a couple of the comments made me think about what you were saying about being transparent about mistakes and how difficult that is. I think all aid agencies have this problem and it's not just between humanitarian and development aid, it's more apparent with development aid than humanitarian aid. Basically people give money when there's a disaster. But the whole point about agencies being transparent about how difficult it is to create sustainable development would mean educating the public in a way that would change the way in which I'm sure we all know oh but the public needs to know that we're accountable for the money spent. Yes they do in ways that are different from those in which we are choosing to tell them about that accountability. If we widen the nature of that accountability to having educated them I think we can have a lot more leeway for institutional development for aid. Thank you, Arnon. At Bradford we have been working with the China Development Bank for the last four, five years and that has been a very interesting learning experience for us. And we are trying to learn more, it's not very easy. For donors I think we have a lot more information published in a traditional way so we can do kind of analysis, et cetera. But with the new this kind of development contributors or development donors especially with China we find that there is a lot of intervention which we don't really know about. And in a paper that Tony Edison and I have done last year looking just at infrastructure who is putting how much in terms of infrastructure investment in Africa we did find that China's contribution is very large. Now to even to get that kind of a figure it was really very difficult looking at annual reports and things like that. That is one of I think is the challenges when we are trying to understand the new donors. Of course we do understand they have their own priorities and quite a lot of bilateral discussions with individual countries and some of development finance is not identified separately. It is channel in kind and therefore it's very difficult to measure. I think those are kind of challenges which they are aware of but for us especially when trying to understand the bigger picture it is really very difficult mainly because of that. And on top of that then there are all these kinds of claims whether the new donors are picking particular countries for example natural resource based or whether I think that kind of a criticism should not be singled out for these new donors. I think that has always been impure altruism kind of argument or conditional aid or whatever. So I think with the new donors the development flows or development assistance flows in a very different way. Many of that, much of that may not be measured. It may be not visible in the traditional ways in which we use to measure development assistance. So that's why it is very difficult for us to actually get the bigger picture. When where we are able to unpack we do find that it is really significant and it does make a difference. And just last point about China. We tend to think of China, China's rule especially in Africa as building airports or bypasses but they also have a very significant for example microfinance program for rural farmers in Malawi. Things like that. Thank you. Before we break for lunch if you would give donors in the room on the web in the world, each one, one really good advice, your best advice, what would that be? I think we've all said it here, work with the countries, work with the people who actually be receiving the aid, the communities and the people themselves, the parents, the children, understand what they need, what will work, what they will eat, what will work for them. Ask more. Yeah. Ask more. Armando. My kind of advice was already said by Yera who stole my main point. She said something that is really important and it's this that we don't usually associate the social sector's expenditure with the resources needed in developing countries to support them. That is we got to associate social sector expenditure with taxation, with revenue collection. And my advice which Yera already mentioned is that perhaps what we should do in developing countries is first of all try to see what can be done to strengthen domestic revenue collection. Well, my advice will go, it's about South-South cooperation. It's not, I think traditional donors should not presume that South-South cooperation is better and will solve all the problems. I think it has a great potential for effectiveness in, I think, from the perception dimension. The thing about inspiration is fundamental for learning processes to go smoother. It's fundamental, but we can't presume that it's all fine. We, that, I mean, let's just stimulate it to happen. We really need to have evaluation in field for this potential to be expanded. Thank you. We have the donors in the room and after lunch, that will be served just outside here. After lunch, we will meet them here and hear what they picked up during this day and at all. And welcome back then. We see you here in one hour, two o'clock and have a nice lunch. Thank you and an applaud.