 Begin by emphasizing this is not a new UNICEF strategy. UNICEF has always been fundamentally concerned with issues of equity and the most disadvantaged children. But as we thought about this last spring and looked at statistics not only from UNICEF but from, say, the children and many others, the fact is that as the world has been making progress towards the MDGs, mostly by averaging national statistics, we are discovering that in a lot of countries, and we'll show you this in more detail, while the nations might be making some progress on under five child mortality, it's very uneven and within nations and among nations the gaps between the most disadvantaged and the most advantaged are growing. The question is, are the results of concentrating on these areas greater than any additional costs to get there? In other words, is it cost effective to work there? Because if it's cost effective, that means that we can, at a time of limited resources around the world, move more quickly towards the MDGs, which is a statistical goal, and save all of those children's lives, which is the real goal. As Mr. Lake said, one of the startling findings which many of us in the room are also previously aware of, but actually we now have very clear indication that particularly if you look at the 16, sorry, 24 countries which have made the most progress in reduction of under five mortality, 16 of them have actually done it with increasing disparities between the poorest and the richest. And in the majority of those countries there's actually been more than 10% widening of inequalities in terms of child survival. We can show the same for nutritional status, we can show the same for access to critical services. What we found is that we basically modeled two different strategies, something called the current strategy and an equity-focused one. And I'll go into details of what they consist of, but just to briefly summarize that the current was the current dominant equity strategies that countries have in their plans. And we assume that they would implement those strategies, including, for example, getting rid of user fees, of scaling up training of health workers, of getting more clinics built, more nurses and doctors and so forth. And you can see that if that gets implemented in a way which plans for countries have said, there will be a notable decrease in the five years that we modeled in 2015 in the yellow bars, both in the most deprived and least deprived areas by doing this. But what we're calling a more equity-focused approach will get you an even greater return. And it will accelerate further and give you lower rates of mortality in both the most deprived and even in the least deprived areas as well. In other words, if we put this in terms of the 15 countries that we modeled and you aggregate them, having an even greater focus on equities and focusing on populations with the highest burdens will actually accelerate progress towards the MDGs. Not only that, but our analysis also found that it's much more cost-effective in all the settings. And it's most cost-effective in the poorest settings, in particular across Africa. So if you look at the top two graphics, with the additional million dollars invested in a more focused equity strategy, you will save up to 60, 70% more lives in the poorest countries because you get much better return for those interventions and those ways of deliverings. And I just want to emphasize one of the points on the MBB analysis of looking at bottlenecks. As you notice, the supply side, we're doing better than the demand side. And just as I hope that this study helps us adjust our thinking a little bit on the conventional wisdom that is too expensive to do this because it turns out to be more cost-effective to do it. Another is that, certainly for me, to the degree I've been a part of the development community and certainly now, my conventional wisdom has been that aid is all about supply. More vaccines, more bed nets, more of this, more of that. But what this shows, and it's a very important conclusion, is that we have to focus a lot more on the demand side of helping the poor have access to this lowering fees, changing behaviors and things as simple as hand-washing or convincing mothers if you provide waiting houses, for example, to go so that they can take advantage of clinics that are closer to it to their villages and that it has implications for how we think about developing health systems. I would emphasize here, we are not calling for stopping what we're doing now in building health care systems. You will not find me going to some country and saying, tear down that hospital, Mr. Gorbachev. But we are saying on all of this that as we go forward in our marginal work, going forward for the next five years and beyond, we need to put more resources into this and less into the traditional approaches. Music