 Governments that are not prepared for a price spike in food frequently has to turn to very very expensive measures and that could be for example cash transfer programs which would cost a lot of money. They could have food price subsidies that would cost a lot of money. The fiscal cost would be very very large. Removing the value added taxes on food which was a policy that was pursued by some countries means they lose revenue. Removing the import taxes means they lose revenue. Removing export taxes or putting in a ban on export means they reduce revenues so they will reduce revenues and or they will spend a lot of money on programs that are only viable in the very short term. During the last year or so we have seen falling grain prices, falling cereal prices in the international market. This provides a window for governments to get ready for the next price spike and they do that by investing in rural infrastructure so that food can be moved from a surplus area to a deficit area so that food can be moved up the value chain. They do that by investing in agricultural research which will improve and increase the yield of food produced per unit of land and per unit of water. They do it by changing some of the existing policies. There are number of things governments can do to prepare so that when the price spike does come they will be much more ready than there were last time. One thing that's currently being considered in India is to put aside a fund and an amount of money which can be released to import or food or to reduce exports in an orderly fashion or to compensate losers. The number of ways those funds can be used to avoid negative consequences for the population. There are other countries that believe that we should stockpile food. We should have huge amounts of food just sitting there waiting for the next price spike. Well, guess what? The rats are going to eat it before the next price spike. It is not a good idea to accumulate a large amount of food because first of all it's very expensive to maintain it and secondly because it's expensive it's probably not going to be maintained correctly therefore the losses are huge. India used to have more than 80 million tons of grain in stock. They're now down to about 50 million which is still twice the amount they need for a revolving fund in order to deal with seasonality and so on. They need roughly 20 to 25 million tons in stock at any one time. They now have about 50. That's very expensive and they're losing a lot. China used to have large stocks. Sambia of all places used to have huge stocks of grain and it was sitting outside and it was rotting. Solving the problem of price fluctuations by accumulating large stocks of grain is very expensive and probably not a good idea. It's better to accumulate money because the world is not running out of food. It's the allocation and distribution of the food that we need to worry about. If you got money you can buy food. The main problem with using agricultural commodities for biofuel is that we currently have blending mandates in the United States and the European Union that do not depend on the price of the raw material. Now let me explain. You have a market for let's say maize or soybeans. You can use that maize for biofuel. You can use that soy for biodiesel and you can use the maize for ethanol and depending on what the price of these commodities would be you would use more or less. No, that's not the way the blending mandate works. The blending mandate says you shall include in the gasoline or the diesel you sell at the pump, at the gas station, you should include X percent of biofuel. In the United States right now it's 10 percent. It's scheduled to go up independent of what the price of maize is and that's where the biofuel would come from or the biodiesel from soybean. So you are siphoning off the top of the market what's being used for biofuel and that increases the price that the food is available at. Instead of saying okay the biofuel raw materials have to be priced depending on what the price is oil companies may take more or less for biofuel. Now the solution to the biofuel problem of course is to get into the cellulose market so that you can use material that cannot be used for food. But we can do that now but it's very expensive but there is research underway so that we don't have this direct competition. Actually it would be much better not to use biofuel but to use wind energy and solar energy and a number of other viable approaches but we need more research to make those economic defeasible. It's a very good question. How do you improve the trust between the two sectors? One of the things we found in this research that we're talking about was a tremendous mistrust in virtually every one of the 14 developing countries. Governments would hold back information about new decrees on new policies until the last minute so that the private sector didn't have time to adjust to it. The private sector in turn would hold back information about hoarding, about storage, about what they were going to do until the last minute. So we had very little collaboration between the two sectors in most of those countries. How you improve, how you create trust is not entirely clear to me. It's above my pay grade I'm afraid but the first thing to do of course is to have transparency. We have to have transparency but you can't get transparency if you don't trust the other guy. If I don't trust you, I'm not going to be transparent to you because I expect that you're going to misuse that. You're going to use that against me. So I don't really know how to make that happen except to continue to do analyses to show that public-private partnership is much better than public-private competition. We need investment in public goods in order for the private sector to operate. For example, would you start a agricultural processing plant in the developing countries under the conditions that you don't know if you get electricity and you don't know if you get it one or two hours a day and you don't know which hours, if you can't buy the inputs you need, if the roads are such that you can't really get your products out without paying an immense amount of money. So unless we get those public goods investments and that is to a very large extent infrastructure and institutions, the private sector can't make money and it won't go in and it shouldn't go in. So a better understanding of how that interaction is essential for both sectors and ultimately for people because this is all about making people's livelihood better. A better understanding of that I think would be helpful.