 Yeah, hello. Okay, if I can ask you to take your seats. We're gonna keep going. I apologize for being too enthusiastic about the last panel but a very interesting group of people. So, Elizabeth Littlefield is going to give us our keynote address. Elizabeth is president and CEO of OPEC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and has been an important voice on development finance. She comes out of JP Morgan, has spent a good deal of time working on micro finance issues. As you well know, finance and investment play an important role in our report. As we agreed, there's a need for more flexible financing for companies who want to engage in developing countries. I can tell you from my own experience that OPEC financed a hotel for us in a emerging market country and a hundred percent it would not have happened had we not had that sort of support out of the US government. So, let me turn it over to Elizabeth and thank you. Good afternoon everyone. I am new to government but I've been investing in emerging markets, sometimes submerging markets for most of my career, and as it rose out I am inordinately excited about this report. Sort of unusually abnormally excited about this report because it says so many things that I've been believing in most of my career. And as Carly just said also, I mean it's clear lifting people out of poverty is good for us at home. I think the report's core message that you know prosperity and national security in America is closely tied to economic growth in developing countries. And this message of course has been at the core of OPEC's work since the since it was commenced, mobilizing private sector investment into emerging in frontier markets so that jobs growth and prosperity can then follow jobs growth and prosperity both at home and abroad. So OPEC does that by providing the long-term financing and the risk mitigation tools that remove the barriers to investments and remove the barriers that companies can invest in those key emerging markets and fragile states or as Tom said the fragile states in bad neighborhoods. So we provide the tools that make those investments actually happen. What are these kind of tools? Were there tools like political risk insurance, $150 million for a US company to build a power plant in Egypt or in Jordan? But we'll take care of all the political risks while they can focus on the commercial risks. Or two tools like a $3 million long-term 15-year financing for a Tennessee-based horticulturalist who wanted to go to Rwanda and bring his new contemporary plant and forestry propagation methodologies to Rwanda in a way that actually promises to multiply by tenfold the productivity per hectare in that poor African country. So these are the kind of tools that we're focusing on. Now what I find is it is that when you talk about using public sector tools to lever the private sector, to challenge those challenges and to tackle the challenges in developing countries, people tend to think in kind of a binary way. They think okay here's a problem that the private sector won't do so the public sector's got to do it. Whereas what we should be saying is not at all that. Here's a problem that the private sector won't do so what is the smallest amount of public money that can be deployed to lever in the maximum amount of private money. That's the logic that we should be focusing on and it's that which we do. It's using all those public sector tools to pull in the private sector to tackle development challenges. That's what OPIC does. So 40 years ago OPIC was carved out of the side of USAID because President Nixon believed that we needed a specialized development finance institution that had hardcore banking and project finance skills to support the private sector and its investments in emerging markets. And it turns out this was a pretty prescient idea because at that time 40 years ago only 15% of the money that flowed from the US to emerging markets was foreign direct investment and now 40 years later that's completely reversed. 85% of the flows to emerging markets from the US are foreign direct investment. So in those 40 years since OPIC's creation the agency has catalyzed over $200 billion as you heard from Mr. Pritzker just earlier $200 billion of investment in sustainable economic development in emerging markets. Sustainable economic development $200 billion and we've done it profitably but I'll come to that in a moment. In each and every country in which the agency works those investments create just the kind of relationships we were talking about on this earlier panel. They create the kind of business to business person to person tool relationships that in my view are our most powerful foreign policy tool over the long run. These are partnerships that help promote understanding and respect as was said just earlier understanding and respect across cultures that demonstrates that prosperity can be shared and that project the very best of American values and standards. So today other development finance institutions have been set up in almost every single G7 country as well as of course the IFC which is the largest development finance institution of all. In this model of private sector led development is absolutely booming as people cotton on to the fact that private investment is an essential compliment to aid and that is the engine of growth. Of course we know that the private sector creates nine out of ten jobs so gee why wouldn't you want it to be a partner in the aid business as well. As the paper noted in the early 2000s the development finance institution like OPIC and the IFC were financing projects to the tune of 10 billion dollars a year in the 2000s and today it's 40 billion dollars a year. That's an incredible growth rate and it's going to continue and you'll hear why. And it has to continue because we know that far more private capital investment is needed in the emerging markets. In fact estimates show that I think it's a trillion dollars is required for the annually for investments in emerging markets infrastructure. Now that doesn't even include the investments that are required in agriculture in health in climate change adaptation etc. So what are we going to do to catalyze more of those flows. How can we have the development finance institution that bridge the gap between government and the private sector continue on this incredible trajectory they're on already. Well I'd mentioned three things. First we need dramatic improvements in the business environment in these countries. The doing business report that the World Bank and the IFC launched a number of years ago is really an incredibly powerful tool for this and AID has done a lot of work to help countries develop that business more friendly business enabling environment. In fact I was just in Haiti last week and I couldn't believe it because the prime minister of Haiti sat down with his iPad and showed me where Haiti ranked very low on the doing business doing business rankings. Now the prime minister is worried about this. The president is worried about it and they're showing it to me and what they're going to do to fix that on their iPad. So number one I think one of the most powerful things AID and the development community can do is provide the kind of advice that governments need to improve and make more friendly more transparent more fair more clear the business enabling environment. Secondly you know information about opportunities. We need information to help address the information asymmetries that keeps U.S. businesses sitting right here at home where growth is slow and low rather than investing in emerging markets so that they can take advantage of that boom. USTDA does a terrific job with funding reverse trade missions and feasibility studies that help address those information asymmetries and I think we need more and more of that just so the American companies understand that what's out there in the rest of the world. I think it was said earlier by you that 96% of the world's customers reside abroad but only 1% of U.S. companies are investing abroad. So that's a gap that we need to fill. And third of course more finance and risk mitigation tools such as the things that OPIC does are absolutely required but more importantly than that is a means to efficiently combine different types of capital and tools at the right time at the right place ex ante to make it available to two projects. You know in the business sector you have angel capital that gives way to venture capital that gives way eventually to scaling up with commercial debt. We don't have the ability to align our development tools in the same in the same way. So let me say just a few words if I may about OPIC and how the recommendations in this report very powerfully address our key challenges i.e. what holds us back from being able to contribute more to development more to business more revenues and what and what the opportunities are i.e. what the potential is for us really to to do some of that. OPIC currently manages 16 and a half billion dollar portfolio of loans and guarantees and insurance projects in 103 countries and we operate on a fully self-financing self-sustaining basis at no cost to the taxpayer whatsoever. I keep repeating that over and over again. It's got to sink in. In this budget environment I can't say that often enough. How about this for every one dollar that's invested in OPIC's budget we generate five in income for the 150 account in offsets for the budget. How about this for every one dollar invested in OPIC's budget we're generating $155 in development dollars on the ground. We generate income between two and three hundred million dollars every single solitary year and that that income goes back to finance again the 150 account which is the money out of which the State Department and AID and others are funded. And yet we have staff of only 220 people. We're the smallest development finance institution of all and far smaller and certainly compared to our GDP for 220 people to be doing this business is crazy. Actually you know what one of my favorite statistics is per employee we actually make more money than Apple. Now some of that's on our daily operations because we charge interest and commissions on everything that we do but some of it of course is the interest earned on our retained earnings that we've earned over time from those commissions. So 220 people producing 300 million dollars and three and a half billion dollars every year in development impact with private sector businesses supporting development advancing foreign policy helping U.S. businesses and generating income at the same time. That's why I said yes when I got that call. The agency places its highest priority on countries that are key to U.S. foreign policy like Afghanistan Pakistan Egypt and the rest of the Middle East and North Africa because we believe honestly that business and economic partnerships are going to be the most promising way that we as a country can reshape our relationships with those with with those nations in that region. This for the same for the very same reasons we focus also on the lowest income countries which is why I was in Haiti last week but mainly lowest income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. In fact since the Obama administration took office OPEC has significantly significantly expanded his portfolio in Sub-Saharan Africa. Thanks to that effort since in fact since 2009 we've grown our portfolio by nearly 50 percent to from two and a half billion dollars to three point seven five billion last year. So Africa is a big priority for us. You'll be glad to know the gentleman in the back who asked the question earlier. Now from a sector perspective we have prioritized renewable resources and by renewable resources I mean water forestry agriculture and especially energy. We're focusing on renewable energy because we know that through green sustainable growth we can transform an inefficient inequitable polluting and high resource consuming global economy into an efficient progressive prosperous and inclusive economy. And because we also know that sustainable growth creates many many mutually reinforcing pluses such as greater resource efficiency healthier people and planet new job creation more energy security and of course cleaner air and oceans. So what's not to love about that. Responding to that focus of course the agency has grown its renewable resources commitments dramatically in the last couple of years from 10 million dollars in 2008 to 1.6 billion in 2012. We've multiplied in three years 15 fold the investments that we've made with private sector partners in renewable resources and that includes everything from wind and the energy fund anyway wind geothermal biofuels biomass energy efficiency projects hydro solar etcetera. So coming to the end challenges what's holding us back. Well it's there's three things you'll be surprised to find there's three there's always three things no matter what you do it's always three. So the first thing that holds us back as I think I alluded to is a lack of human resources that we have we lack resources to come anywhere close to meeting market demand or anywhere close to deploying the full twenty nine billion in capital that we've been allocated by Treasury. We can't get anywhere near that we're only 16 billion today. We can't get to twenty nine billion responsibly because we don't have enough staff to competently and thoroughly make take those risks to make those investments. So you know by many people's standards we are we represent a market failure. It's a market failure when you have an organization that's making money has plenty of capital there has tons of demand great appetite but can't get there because we lack the basic talent that human staff to get there. We are we are the IFC just I don't know if anyone from the IFC in this room if you are I apologize I know Dan you come from the IFC but and I've said this to them too IFC is three times as big as us in terms of portfolio but seventeen times as big in terms of staff. So we just can't grow unless we have more bodies. Second thing we actually lack the full suite of tools and this was something the report mentioned our competitors have debt and insurance sometimes to combine but they always have either equity or a grant tool to accompany that that that debt. And this is normal because in any in development clearly when you're working in risky places you can't come in with leverage right off the bat you got to come in with other instruments first equity grants to get things primed and prepared to be able to be leveraged later on. And as I said earlier like in the business sector you have angel angel capital that leads to venture capital that leads to commercialization. So to development needs different tools at different stages of its work. And thirdly again as the report mentioned we need a multi-year or permanent reauthorization. It is far too risky for our business customers to work with us when we ride every year on a one year extension every year. And that's very challenging it's more challenging for us than it might be for other agencies like defense or AID or Exim who have a natural strong single singular constituency. We don't have that natural strong singular constituency. Three quarters of our business is with three with is with small and medium enterprises in the US who don't have a presence in Washington who don't have a sophisticated legislative affairs strategy. So we're kind of out there on our own. And also frankly it's very difficult to explain to people simply how outgoing foreign direct investment is good for America. It's hard enough to explain why exports are good for America. Try explaining why money leaving the country to invest in a poor country is good is good for America. So it's a complicated story. People tend to confuse export promotion and development. And so for that reason we remain the best kept secret in Washington with a one year reauthorization. So finally coming to opportunities. What could we do if we if we could get there. What could we do if we did have more tools and more resources better aligned. Well first of all the opportunity is that the demand feels almost infinite with the right risk mitigants businesses and banks are rapidly seeing the importance of tapping the emerging markets. As we said 95 percent of the customers are out there but only one percent of the US is actually using those markets. This feels like an infinite virtually infinite demand out there. Secondly I truly believe that the transition to a low carbon economy is actually the biggest economic transformation and the most predictable of our lifetimes. And getting in there and helping US businesses get in there and emerging markets is a huge opportunity. And third of course we have a successful scalable model already. So let me just leave you with one final thought and that is you know imagine that we can create a partially self financing ecosystem of our development tools. OPIC and others generating income from the private sector through fees and interest and commissions that they're willing to pay and generating as much revenue as we possibly can as we grow to meet market demand generating that revenue in a way that can reinvest in the other development agencies so that they can do more of their work. I don't know if we could ever be big enough to finance the entire foreign aid budget but we could get part way there. So let's think about this as an ecosystem that could potentially be self financing. President Obama told me that he did understand the OPIC to be the best kept secret in government because as he said it advances it advances development. It advances foreign policy while helping US businesses creating jobs and earning money for the taxpayer. I figured he's pretty good at reading his briefing notes. Most of an eye that wrote them actually too. Well we will always always always need aid for the riskiest and hardest challenges in development but where the private sector can help. Let's please figure a way we can scale it up in the most efficient and effective way and to make that happen. Thank you very much. Elizabeth thank you very much. We'll have a couple of questions from the audience but I want to first ask you a question since we know each other well and we've been working with you here at CSIS on development finance. What in your mind does collaboration across AID, TDA and OPIC what could it look like. Certainly you've painted a vision of and I think it's a very interesting one I think if you look at the way IFC works it's sort of this is in essence what you're doing you fund IFC makes profits on its investments and then takes those profits and partially funds the technical assistance it provides that you could think of it in the way in which TDA or AID provides grants or technical assistance. Talk a little bit about how what it might look like in terms of aid and TDA and OPIC working more closely together what might that look like. Yes thanks very much Dan I can give you a couple of examples of how it has worked and I'm very proud to say that in the last three years we've probably done more with AID than ever ever before. We've done most of the work we've done in key foreign policy places has only been possible because AID came in with a grant to help create the implementing agent that was then able to for example is able to then help us guarantee loans that are being made for small and medium enterprises for example. So in Egypt and Jordan just to take that example more specifically we've set up small and medium enterprise lending facilities but we don't have the grant money to set up the operating expenses for the guy on the ground that's going to guarantee the loans loan by loan by loan. So when we approved 250 million dollars worth of loan guarantees to be done through Egyptian banks and a local implementing agent it was AID that came along and provided the money to create that implementing agent. Couldn't have happened otherwise. Does aid understand what you do and does OPEC understand what aid does. Yes. And I'm going to yes. So we've we've been able to pull this together in Egypt as I mentioned in Jordan just last week I was in Haiti there but there's a very good example why it's so difficult. We've taken us two and a half years to bolt together OPEC's financing instrument which in this case is for long term mortgages for Haitians with with a grant from AID to help to help create that implementing agent and a grant from Clinton Bush Haiti fund to provide first loss or equity for that. Two and a half years of beating our head against each other to try to figure how we both these these things together. It's very difficult because aid pre-programs its money in collaboration with the government and we respond to a business opportunity when it happens. So making those two things connected can be very challenging. So what we did last year with TDA as well was create a facility for example that addresses this need to align different kinds of capital ex-ante. The state department put aside 20 million dollars to provide project preparation support for projects in Africa and in the clean clean energy sector. It's called the Africa Clean Energy Finance and there you know we're saying no to we're leaving hundreds of millions of dollars of deals on the table on the shelf that we can't do because they lack one or two million dollars in grant support or project prep for say paying for a land survey or an environmental study. This facility is going to provide money to do those deals that will instantly lead to an open transaction thereafter. So that's that's the kind of way we've addressed this problem of needing to bolt things together deal by deal by deal and instead looking to provide those aligned resources ex-ante in and we're hoping to do more of that. It's really great. Okay. Let's there's some very thoughtful people in the audience who understand development finance. I'm looking around and I see some people who work on on these issues and see if in addition this this this woman here's has her hand up. Thank you. I think my name is Jeanine Wayne with Boys of Vietnamese Americans. Thank you for an exciting picture. Have you thought of or have you had the plans for Southeast Asia where the president has big focus in for future market and also in particular for Vietnam and for that I am going to ask you what the human capital have you thought of the diaspora? The Vietnamese, the Asian, Southeast Asian diaspora and we in particular have many people of Vietnamese economists have been working for a long time with USAID in Africa and many other developing countries. Wonder if they can now fit in your picture. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Great. I'm happy to answer that. In fact, we we're currently underweight in East Asia and just a month or so ago in conjunction with the president's trip, there was a commitment for another large billion dollars for OPIC to generate in new investments in East Asia in the next couple of years. So we're we're focusing on marketing in that area because we've not been present. And again, one of our challenges, we have zero presence on the ground. Those 220 people, except for one guy, they're all down the street in Washington DC. So for us to generate deals in East Asia, we need to work in very close collaboration with the State Department and with AID who are on the ground and can identify those opportunities. With respect to the diaspora, you put your finger right on the hot spot because the diaspora is one of our best partners. The more difficult the market, the more likely we are to rely on diaspora investments going in first. I think probably a full half of what we're doing in Afghanistan is with Afghan Americans. A number of our deals in Pakistan are as well as as well as of course the Middle East. So diaspora is very, very important. We've actually liberalized our some of our policies and now can consider green card holders as eligible for open financing as well as passport holders. So that was specifically to address the need to work more flexibly with the diaspora. Last question for Elizabeth Littlefield. This gentleman back here. I'm Steve Senna. My question is how in the Monterey consensus in 2002 there was multinational agreement to mobilize private capital for development. And one of the anchors of that or one of the key points is domestic private capital. So I'm wondering how OPIC moves that forward. How much of the portfolio, if that's a way you can put it, mobilizes domestic capital in country rather than just bringing in foreign capital. Thank you. Right. Thank you for that. I can, you know, this is one of the things I think is going to be very important for Sub-Saharan Africa going forward and we've worked with the African Development Bank and others to figure how we can how we can better leverage the vast sums of, for example, pension money that's being managed in Sub-Saharan Africa to invest in infrastructure. But more specifically the examples are we work oftentimes with local banks. So for example, the small and medium enterprise lending facilities that we've created in a number of countries in partnership with the ID provide incentives for local banks to make loans that they wouldn't otherwise make to small and medium enterprise by guaranteeing part of that loan. So for example, in Jordan, we're guaranteeing a larger proportion of the loan, I think it's 85% if I'm not wrong, for women-owned businesses and businesses outside of Amman and then a smaller amount for businesses in Amman. But those are the local banks, I think seven or eight banks have signed on to do this. And these are, they're making loans that they wouldn't have made otherwise. How do we know that? Because in the early days of these programs and again now we've got four or five of them. In the early days of these programs, our entity on the ground, the one that AID paid for, was rejecting 90% of the applicants that came in from all the local banks because they were incomplete, they were too risky, they were just poorly prepared. Now a year and a half later we're accepting 90% of those, which means that the banks have actually learned how to lend to small and medium enterprises, which means maybe we can do what we all should be looking to do, which is make ourselves irrelevant and the local banks will then take on the job of lending domestically. So that's one of the ways we work with domestic sources of capital. Elizabeth, thank you so much. This has really been great. As I've said before many times, you are a great public server in the country. It's very fortunate to have you in your rollout opaque. Please join me in thanking Elizabeth. We're going to go directly to our next panel. I'd ask the three panelists to come up please. Great. Just push the red button. Push it again. There we go. So as they're assembling, let me just first thank Elizabeth for not only participating today, but for what she's doing. And of course the message from our point of view is we have a product that people want and is consistent with the thoughts of people who work in this area. For our second panel, the discussion is around the future of U.S. development engagement, the U.S. government, the private sector and NGOs where we'll hear from various council members, people who participated and were engaged in developing the report that you see. First let me introduce Helen Gale. Helen is CEO of Care USA. Mark Green, former U.S. rep from Wisconsin, former ambassador to Tanzania. And Rhonda Zygaki, did I get it right? Executive vice president, policy planning for Chevron. And Dan who is the co-chair, co-director of this CSIS project on U.S. leadership development will moderate this group. Thanks very much. Thanks, Tom. There's been a lot of discussion about partnerships in the last 10 years in the development community. I think it's now become something that's accepted as an approach that is a tool in the toolkit of development professionals, whether it's from government, whether it's from the nonprofit sector or from the private sector. I think we have three very thoughtful panelists, council members who bring each the government, the private sector and the nonprofit sector perspective to this conversation to bear. We're going to be talking about the future of tri-sector partnerships in this conversation and sort of the broader context of it. And as Tom has introduced the panelists, I won't go into detail on their biographies, you have them in front of you. But what I might do is just, I think you'll see in the report, we talk about not only the council came to the conclusion that the private sector ought to be the central organizing principle of development, development policy for the United States, but also that the United States ought to work far more closely with the private sector. And that's going to require the nonprofit sector, it's going to require a higher level of capability and front-loading planning, especially places like AID, to build those sorts of partnerships that AID has done over the last ten years but to do a lot more of that going forward. So I think that's another part of the message of the report and we wanted to delve into it here in this panel. I'm going to start, we're going to do this and I'm going to ask various questions for each of the panelists from their perspective and what we'll do is then we'll have a conversation and we'll open it up for a discussion with the audience. I'm going to first ask Ambassador Mark Green to talk about the public sector perspective on this Mark, you have worn a number of different hats where you've seen the role of the public sector in development. You were one of the original members of Congress to help get PEPFAR done as well as one of the original members of Congress to help make MCC a reality and it helped oversee the large increases in assistance that in partnership with the Bush administration that we saw in those in those several Congresses that was really the largest foreign assistance increase since the Truman administration. You then went on to be ambassador to Tanzania where you had an MCC program, you had PEPFAR, you had an aid mission. So if you could just talk a little bit about how you see the role of the private sector and what why how you've concluded from your perch in these various public sector roles what the role the private sector is in development. Thanks Dan and it's good to be with all of you and with my co-panelists. But first off I think the most important thing to acknowledge is that private business is doing development, has been for years, for decades, doing it very well. So it's not a question of how do we get the private sector involved in development. It's instead a question of precisely where do the interests align. And in those cases where the interests do align I think we can take on development challenges, recognize development challenges in a remarkably effective, efficient and innovative way. And one of the stories we talked about in the council is the case of Anglo gold Ashanti in Ghana, gold mining company, which discovered that its employees in Ghana had an extraordinarily high lost work days rate as a result of malaria. And so of course it was in their interest to take on the problem of malaria for their employees in order to take on that financial challenge. And they did so and did so quite effectively and efficiently. And then they recognized that to get your arms around malaria it's not just a matter of taking on the health of your employees but their families and the larger communities and pretty soon the Ministry of Health began to take notice and say look, these folks are they bring to it the zeal and innovation of the private sector on outcomes that we all agree are important. Well, fast forward and Anglo gold Ashanti became the second corporation in the world in the first in Africa to become a global fund grantee. And so now with global fund support they're not only training people and taking on malaria in their immediate areas but country wide and even training employees and leaders in other extractive industry companies around the continent. So again, it's a it's a very simple case of of this company doing something that was in its own interest but doing so in a way that produced marvelous agreed upon development outcomes. So it's recognizing that the private sector has been and will be for a long time involved in development and how is it that we can where the interests align match up for agreed upon outcomes. So, Rhonda, you're the executive vice president for policy and planning at Chevron corporation. Tell us a little bit about how Chevron sees the future of global development and obviously you've come to this conversation as Mark was talking about it that the private sector does development. It's a critical actor in development. Talk a little bit about how Chevron sees development going forward. Well, let me thanks Dan and let me build on Mark's point because aligned interests are critical and that is a foundation and let me build from there what else is critical. We see three things that are essential to U.S. engagement and development in the future and we've talked a lot about one of them already is the central the organizing principle of broad-based economic growth. The case has been made for that so and it is essentially what business does with all of our investment. The other two things are the agenda has to be shared and it has to be enduring. Now why do I want to focus on these things because like many businesses I mean we've been operating in the developing world for over 50 years and we have relationships with countries that go back 50, 80 years and so we've learned a lot about what works and what doesn't work. What we know for a fact is that we cannot solve these challenges alone. They are beyond any one of us whether in the private sector or the public sector or the NGO community they are big challenges and only by working together in a shared way can we create greater leverage and scale and therefore impact results and our experience has been is when we do these things together we can actually create the scale at which that we the seeds of sustainability economic sustainability can actually really grab at the community level. So that's one once you get alignment you have to get scale and so the agenda needs to be shared. It's also that not only that you collaborate and innovate together in a shared agenda but you complement. We don't have to do the same things we bring different tools. Sometimes we rely on the public sector to you focus on the institution building with your government partners and we'll focus on the economic aspects at the community level. So we all also play a different role but all roles are created are necessary to create the stability and the third point I would add to this it has to be enduring. These aren't projects and I think our keynote mentioned we're funded one year and then we have to re-up. It's the same in these kinds of projects. You cannot write a check for a project handed off and it's a one year project and you come back and restart again. The path to economic prosperity is a long journey. It requires sustained efforts on the part of all actors who want to contribute and this has been our experience as well. One of the changes we've made in our development philosophy other than the need for partnership and scale is the one for enduring and sustained commitment. So we've gone from you know one year kind of projects to a minimal five year projects and the partners we work at can at least be assured we're going to be in the game for a series of years and not one off. Now the interesting thing about this is that most governments, NGOs and companies have already made generational commitments and presence in these countries. When we think back we've been there 50 years and the investments we make in these countries in our energy developments are going to last for another 50 years. And so when you can shift your mindset into a very long term you change your paradigm of what your development kind of activity and commitment is going to be. So it allows you the space in the room to think about it in very long term time frames and create projects that will have sustainability potential. Colleen, your president and CEO of CARE USA you're also a CSIS board member. You've had a tri-sector career. You were in government for 20 years and you're also at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and now you've been at CARE USA. Your website talks about that CARE believes that multi-stakeholder partnerships with the private sector are critical to solving complex problems. I certainly when I think of whether it's educating girls or empowering women I certainly think of that as being one of the multi-stakeholder partnerships has to be the way to engage on those sorts of challenges. Could you talk a little bit about how CARE thinks about multi-stakeholder partnerships and are there some examples that come to mind for you that sort of draw out the example of where it makes sense for you to work across the sectors? Yeah, thanks, Dan. And I would just echo what everybody has said. I'm so pleased to have been associated with this even though my attendance and meetings wasn't always great. But it really is, I think, one of the landmark reports that CSIS has put out. And so, you know, as opposed to kind of talking about something in one more iteration, I think this is something that will really in some ways change the landscape of our dialogue around development. That said, you know, I think a couple of overarching points that I would just like to emphasize and then focus on the specific question. You know, one, I think we have talked about job creation and economic growth as an engine for development as if just by creating jobs and economic growth, we are really going to do the job of development. And I think it is important to remember, and Tom Daschel mentioned, sustainable, but I think equitable is another thing. And, you know, we've talked about this a lot. I think, you know, today, more poor people live in middle income countries that have good economic growth but where the gap and the disparity is growing. So I do think we need to think about the notion of growth is critical, but how are we doing that growth and making sure that it's equitable and that we really are looking at how does it serve the tools of development. Secondly, I think that it is so easy and we've all, you know, if our careers have spanned a couple of decades, we've all seen different phases of things where we say one thing is going to solve it all. And I think the challenge is to make sure, and I think it's what we're all saying is that this is balanced, that I think for far too long we've talked about development as if it is only a public sector endeavor. And I think we're now saying business has such a huge role. It has always, as you've said, been very much a part of it, but we haven't really thought about how do we blend those things. But I think, you know, the tendency will be to say, okay, now it's all business. It's all the private sector. It's going to solve everything. And we know that's not the case. So with those caveats, you know, this is something that for us it's been hugely rewarding. And in the time that I've been at CARE, I've really been pleased to see some of our partnerships really grow in a variety of different ways, particularly increasing collaboration with the private sector and corporations. And, you know, with our traditional government partners. As an example, an incredible program that we're involved in, and I think it's one of the case studies here, is our collaboration with GAP and women garment workers where GAP, just like many others in the garment industry, are in places where very poor women are very much a part of their workforce. Women who are oftentimes not literate, don't have numeracy skills, don't have management skills who come from communities where their children don't get opportunities. And they've said, you know, if we are really going to make sure that our company does well, we've got to work on our workforce. And we have engaged in a workforce training, 12,000 women now in Bangladesh who have gone through that, many of them who have learned the skills to become part of the management chain. They have also learned basic skills around health and health literacy so that they're not ill as often and absenteeism has gone down. They've also learned basic nutrition such that their children are able to be adequately fed. Rates of malnutrition have started to go down. So I think there are lots of ways in which we've seen that. That's one type of example. Incorporation of populations that we work with into value change globally. Another way that I think is really bearing fruit. I was just at General Mills last week where we have an incredible partnership that started much more as traditional corporate social responsibility. Now we're going to be engaged in a partnership where vanilla growing workers because they now own Haagen-Dazs in Madagascar are going to be getting skills to not only just grow vanilla beans which they used to but also start processing it. So they're also learning how to be more productive in their agricultural productivity. But they're also learning how to become a greater part of the value chain by not only growing but also becoming processors. They're going to be selling back. They'll become part of a global supply chain. It's a renewable source of income that helps grow economic sustainability for communities. But it's also giving that company a much more sustainable source of supply. They don't have to do as much shipping. It will have environmental impacts. All of those sort of things that's good for business. And again, it goes back to the notion of shared mission and shared interests. Good for communities. Good for business. And I think we're seeing those sorts of trends more and more. Mark, you, when you were ambassador in Tanzania, as I said earlier, you had a PEPFAR program. You had an MCC program. You had an aid program. Did they work well with each other across silos if you would? And tell us a little bit about that. And then also talk about, did you have experiences where the private sector came to you in your role as ambassador and wanted to partner with the US government? And can you talk a little about what your experience was as ambassador? Well, I think that the agency and programs are working better today than they ever have been. And I say that because in part it hasn't always been the case. But I think what we're seeing, and I do credit the Obama administration for this, I think there's been a greater stress in the last couple of years on developing interagency management tools for chief submission. And that's terrifically important. People sometimes forget that embassies are multicultural, multi-agency, working with huge budgets, oftentimes in very difficult timelines with lots of different constituencies that they're answerable to. They need leadership that has the ability to bridge gaps and to bring interest together. So that's the single most important thing that I see that, for example, every ambassador who is going to the African continent is a development official because that is what we do on the African continent. It's our strength. You always say it isn't the size of our army that Tanzanians care about, the size of our heart and what our motivations were and what we were doing and where we were doing it. Very, very important. I think that's the most important thing to realize. When it came to private businesses reaching out, again, I think it's important to realize that the private sector has been doing development, have deeper ties in development in many cases than the U.S. government does, particularly in a place like Tanzania, where businesses contacted us was often for more traditional commercial diplomacy because we do have the ear of the government. And so advancing the interests of the private sector is something that we did on a routine basis. But again, I think good leadership here in Washington and on the embassy level is constantly looking for places where the interests align because they do in so many ways. It's looking for some of those innovative leaders. It's looking for what you're seeing in terms of the skill sets of those who are in country and finding ways where the interests coincide. And again, where they do, development goals are met rapidly and as efficiently and effectively as we can. But having said that, I'll step back in one way in which the public sector's role is irreplaceable. And that is oftentimes the public sector creates that framework through which the private sector can operate. In the case of PEPFAR, the AIDS Initiative, which has changed the course of human history in Africa, a number of the key players when it comes to taking on causes of AIDS and malaria operate largely through the support and compassion of the private sector. World Vision, Catholic Relief Services have tremendous support from all over this country and all over the world. But they will tell you that that compassion could not be nearly as effective if it was not for the framework that was PEPFAR. The ability to reach out and see the public policy changes in country. So that's a case where that public sector role is irreplaceable and in many cases is a precursor to development. So as Helene said, each part of the development community, public sector, private sector, in country from back here, each has a role. They shouldn't worry about, shouldn't try to duplicate what others are doing more effectively. There's more than enough work to do. But where the interests align, where you find that sweet spot, that's where you see effective outcomes. Rhonda, talk a little bit about one or two partnerships that have been important to Chevron. I think of, of course, the Angolan partnership initiative. I also think of NDPI. Tell us about those. And I'm going to do that. But first, I want to build on another one of your points. They've been great so far. It's fantastic. Because it is about PEPFAR, the global fund, the work they do. We're a company. Chevron has been in the fight against AIDS for 25 years. And working within our local communities, working within our own clinics and having considerable success because the need was so great. But it is because of the frameworks of the global fund and PEPFAR and UN AIDS and their programs and their clear agenda that we were able to do more. We could, we wanted to contribute more and to find a way into this big global challenge is very difficult. But their frameworks allowed us to participate in a way that's meaningful to us with goals that are achievable and the commitments we make into that fight. Our most recent one is to, to around the initiative to prevent mother-child transition of HIV, which was a big goal towards that in the next three years. We were able to directly participate in those ongoing activities in three countries in Africa. And so to your point, when the frameworks are, are developed by the public sector that meet and align with what we're fighting against in the private sector, it provides a means for us to engage in a very efficient way. And we feel very much a part of this fight in what PEPFAR, UN AIDS and the Global Fund are doing. And we're, and we're very committed partners in that because that alignment is there and the framework is there. So thanks on that. Now on to your question. And I think the example I like to talk about in our experience with partnerships either Angola or Nigeria is important because I think until you experience a transformation, you can't quite believe it's possible. And these partnerships we created in these two countries were the turning point for us as a business, a conducting business in the country to show that we can deliver development in a transformative way that has impact. And try to be short on the Angola story and Helene knows it well because she was, she was a part of this and maybe others in the room where after 27 years of civil war, the president of Angola De Santos came to us and asked for everyone's help. We've been in the country since the 50s. We stayed during the war. We've been a partner as an energy developer and they reached out to us not to give aid to all of the people that had been displaced but to help rebuild local economies and give them livelihoods. And how do we do this? It wasn't the way we actually did our development in the past but we convened the government, USAID, ourselves, a number of fantastic NGOs including CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Save the Children and more. And together, we had to reinvent, I think, how we all did development and it was an extraordinary story where 10 years out, you know, $25 million that we put in was more than matched by others in the partnership. A work for food program that rehabilitated thousands of kilometers of roads, irrigation canals. We redevelop the agro business in the country from subsistence to commercial farming. We started the nation's first micro credit bank which is now boasts 15 branches and 54 million in loans. And we see a country 10 years out that the economy is growing and are no longer dependent on emergency assistance. That type of experience and that type of longevity and enduring experience gives you confidence that you can do these things differently and partnerships work and we've taken those learnings now into the Niger Delta in a partnership that's twice the size. We've committed $50 million. We're trying to lever that up to 100 million and USAIDs come in for 25 of that. We've already engaged 17 partners all committed to breaking down the barriers, the economic barriers that are preventing peace and resolution of conflict and economic activity in that region. Now why is that important to us because we've been in the Delta for over 50 years. We need a safe operating environment. We want to pull on local skills and we want to solve these problems that have been endemic for so long. And so these partnerships have transformed us and kind of in summary, what have we learned? It's really changed the way we think about it. We've gone four things from donors to partners, from building bricks to building capacity, from short-term projects to long-term endeavors and what I like to call from celebrating shared ceremonies at the launch of something to celebrating shared progress when you have results. And so now everything we look at in terms of development in what every country we do business in is informed by those experiences and it's changing the way we engage. So when we start a project in a country now, the first thing we do is reach out to USAID and we look for solutions. I mean, there are go-to agency. We're with them in seven countries and so we seek partnerships as opposed to finding the barriers that prevent them. Colleen, the statement that you have in your website about the belief in multi-stakeholder partnerships with the private sector are critical to solving complex global problems. My sense is that 20 years ago, you might not have had that exact statement on the website. You have deep strategic relationships with individual donors and with the private sector for decades since World War II at the founding of CARE, but I get the sense there's been an intellectual journey within CARE and many other large counterpart NGOs and thinking about the strategic role of the private sector. Could you talk a little bit about that and perhaps within that context, could you share a little bit about how the way in which you're funded has shifted over time? I think of maybe say, oftentimes I'll ask folks at other counterpart organizations like CARE, tell me what your mix was of government funding 10 years ago and let's call it other private sector funding 10 years ago and what it is today. And oftentimes I'm shocked by the changes in the mix because I think many organizations like yours has become much more private sector centric, if you will, than say 10 or 15 or 20 years ago. Yeah, no, thanks. You're right. I mean, I think 10 years ago, our website might have said private sector's the devil. Definitely. I know, I wouldn't, I don't know. Just kidding. But we wouldn't, clearly there's a huge shift in thinking. I think it is fair to say that we have come a long way in the last decade in terms of thinking about shared vision, shared value and the belief that we really can come together. And I think it's taken time. I mean, Rhonda, you give great examples of your work in Chevron, but it's been a journey and an evolution. And because you have stuck in there and have really done the hard work to understand each other, because we do come from different worlds, we think of the world in different ways. And so it has taken time and it's taken the willingness to engage so that we both learn a little in the process. So we have evolved, I think that there's a whole spectrum of NGOs and NGOs' belief and feeling about engagement with the private sector and some of it for good reason. I mean, there have been issues where, in fact, the alignment has not been there and the need to put shareholder value and short-term profit making above all else, which I think is a move that we need to think about how can we even help businesses have the luxury to think longer term? And so sometimes there are, in fact, real issues and real challenges in those relationships. That said, I think what we have recognized is that if you're gonna solve these big problems, you can't do it by yourself. There is no one approach and it really is hand in hand. Another example that we have in a lot of the work that we're doing around social enterprises, a lot of our social enterprises may start with government funding, traditional USAID funding, short-term funding, three years at best, sometimes five years. That's not enough to develop businesses but we can incubate those businesses that then can generate private sector investment. So I think we're looking at all these different ways in which you blend resources in ways that can really have much longer sustainable results. So it does mean that we have moved really to diversify our funding. Probably 10 years ago, our funding USAID would have been about 70%. Now it's about 30%. So we have really worked to diversify our funding. More of it comes from corporations. In the last five years, I think our corporate funding has grown about 15%. Foundation funding has also increased. But I don't think you can even exactly equate dollar for dollar either because I think we use private sector funding in different ways. It leverages resources in different ways. And so it's not even a dollar-to-dollar match in terms of where we are. I think our growth in the private sector has really brought both different approaches looking at different kind of comparative advantages that in some ways has created a much broader opportunity and a much bigger opportunity than traditional public sector dollars. So for us, I think, again, it's not either or, but incredible opportunity to think differently to push our thinking. And at the same time, I think create huge social change. Again, I point to the partnership that we talked about with GAAP. One of the things that they look at is not just what they're doing in their own partnership with us, but how they can help to shift the way the rest of the industry moves. Same thing in some of our partnerships with other corporations. Walmart is looking at, all right, how do they take the projects that we're doing and use that to help to shift the way industry works in general when it looks at emerging markets and inclusion of the poor. So I think there's huge opportunity there well beyond just what an individual project offers. Thanks very much. Mark, let me come back to you and think looking at the, we've talked about the opportunity, we've talked about the shift in the mindset within the public sector, within the private sector, within the nonprofit sector, the chances to work more closely together. We've talked about the opportunity. At the same time, we've got some budget realities and how do we make the case for development to members of Congress, many of whom weren't around for the MCC, weren't around for PEPFAR. How do we make that case and you have a new role as the CEO of the Initiative for Global Development, which advocates for far greater role for the private sector development. How do you make that case for assistance and how do we make the, in particular, how do we make the case for, let's call it private sector development and also public-private partnerships. How do we make the case for those sorts of activities in this period when there's just an incredible amount of pressure on the foreign aid budget? Let me step back and build on something that the two previous speakers had said. It's also something that we haven't touched upon, but I think is implied and implicit in a lot of what we've said. It's important to understand what business funding we're talking about. Corporate social responsibility, donations that are often made from corporations and from individuals towards certain development programs. But I think a lot of what we're talking about and a lot of what the report focuses is on something very, very different. Instead saying, look, economic growth, catalyzing economic growth that lifts opportunities in and of itself is a good. And the reason it's important is there are going to be times when the public sector and the private sector don't partner and that's fine. I mean, nobody's required to partner. We still live in a society in which we don't mandate such things. It's again, looking for the sweet spot, looking and saying, okay, this is good business as well as good development and where those interests align, pounce on it and really push for it hard. But it's important to realize that we're not talking about simply the largesse that some see from the business community. That has been there, that'll always be there. It's an important role that is often played for lots of good reasons. But in and of itself, we want to stimulate the economic opportunities in parts of the world that sadly haven't seen enough of those opportunities so that we can see people rise up and grab onto their own futures. I think that we need to keep coming back to that. With respect to development policy and going to policy makers, I don't think it's complicated. You know, my old congressional district based at Green Bay and out before 9-11, perhaps, the idea of talking about economic development in far off lands, whether it'd be helping to build bridges or whatever, taking on malaria is not something that was on my literature when I went door to door and handed out. If it had, I'm not sure it would have been reelected. But after 9-11, I think people understood instinctively that yeah, you know what, we actually do have to care about what goes off in far off lands. That we do have to care about those places in those conditions that all too often can lead to despair. Poverty doesn't cause terrorism. However, abject poverty, destitute poverty, unaddressed where there are no opportunities, no hope, can lead to the kinds of conditions that some know how to exploit and exploit for bad purposes. After 9-11, I think people understood, yep, you know what, we gotta care. And so I think that first and foremost, we keep coming back to, it is important. It is in our national security interest to care about the plight of people in far off lands. Secondly, and I think is a theme throughout the report, it's smart business. Seven of the 10 fastest growing economies in the world are in Africa. And when you talk to American businesses over and over again, those are the markets that they have to be able to tap into for their futures. So it's in our economic interest to find ways to open up market opportunities. And that is something that the public sector and development programs can help with. They can be either create a framework or help reach out. I think that's important. The third and most important reason, the reason that I think still affects and touches so many policy makers, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, it's the right thing to do. We're Americans, we care about what goes on in the world. We're a compassionate people. We always have cared, we always will care. So I don't think the case is hard to make. Where it gets more difficult is something that you touched upon. I think we forget that more than half of Congress wasn't around when many of these tools were created. They didn't know what PEPFAR is, they know what it is. They don't have the same sense of emotional and political investment that they would have if they were there when we were putting the bill together and when we were gathering those votes and taking a look at amendments. So I do think that even though the case for development is a strong one, I think it's a clear one, it's not one that we can assume gets made if we don't make it. So we do have to go back to members of Congress, policy makers in the administration as well and say, look, yeah, no, this is good. This is important, we care, it matters to us. So it seems to me that those are the three big arguments. Thank you. Rhonda, you've often talked about Chevron's investment in local economic capacity, including supply chain buying power. What's the significance of this for global development? Well, it's very significant because what works for GAP and the clothing industry and agribusiness, it works for energy as well. People think that most of our contribution when we invest in a country is increasing government revenues through resource extraction and then the social investment at the community level. But that really just is the end points. There is so much in between. We influence the ability to strengthen prosperity at multiple levels in the nation. A single energy investment can bring billions into a country and that ripples through that economy just on the scale of things. In the last six years, we spent a billion dollars on social investment around the world. We spent $200 billion on energy development and all of that is in goods and services in the supply chain. So in 2011 alone, 3 million of that found its way into goods and services in Indonesia, sorry, billion, 2 billion into Angolan, 2 billion into Nigeria. These are huge financial resources going into the supply chains of the developing nations. Now, why is that good for us? If we're gonna serve the world's energy needs in the future, we've got to put a lot of money into energy development and we have to build capacity in the host countries where we're extracting those resources. So it's in our business interest to do so. So when we qualify, we spend a lot of time qualifying suppliers on the ground and when we do that, they are qualified to international standards and codes of conduct. And we have seen these suppliers grow from able to serve our needs to the needs of others in the industry that Helene talked to, to actually other industries. And so as they grow, they create another multiplier and ripple effect through their economies. And to those suppliers, and again building on one of Helene's points, that can produce to international standards. When trade agreements become signed between nations, they are very well poised to take advantage of those opportunities to then export their skills and services. So the supply chain is a huge development catalyst in the whole development equation. The money's going in our big, the ripple effect is real, and the escalation of that into trade between nations creates an additional opportunity. So the multiplier effect of supply chain is extraordinary. Helene, talk to us about the evolution in the Care Federation or the Care Network. This is something that maybe a little bit inside baseball to folks in the international NGO community, but when I think about Save the Children, or I think about the Plan Network, or I think about Care, or many other global NGOs, there's been a very complex set of evolutionary changes in how those organizations are governed over time. What does that mean if anything for partners in terms of building partnerships? Could you talk a little bit about that? Well, Care, to try to simplify it, Care, like so many of the international NGOs are confederations or federations. They have multiple members from the global community. Care started as a US NGO, but developed international partners, particularly donor nations, Europe, Canada, Australia. We've now come together like many of our partners to, as opposed to having all of us be independent autonomous members to really become part of a global interdependent organization that really basically operates as one virtual organization as opposed to kind of disjointed members. Huge for us, and it took taking a backseat on national interests and really looking at what our global interest was and how can we have a much more seamless product, if you will, that we produce for the world. And it does mean when we think about partnerships that it's gonna be a lot easier when we think about working and operating in a global world, many of the companies that we engage with are global companies. They may have their parent company in France or in the UK, but we may be doing business with those same companies in the US. Well, if we're much more globally interdependent and operating as a single entity, we can take advantage of those partnerships in a much more seamless way. So we're seeing that already, that we're able to operate in a way that allows partnerships to develop a lot easier and take advantage of the global world that we live in. Great, why don't we open it up? I know there are a lot of folks here in the audience that I know know a lot about partnerships. I wanna call on my friend Andrew Mack up here. Thanks, Dan. We talked a lot about partnerships in the first panel and this is clearly a big emphasis in the second panel. We've made a kind of an evolution, if you will, from the idea that a partnership is something that happens among somewhat reluctant participants who have the same goals to the realization that it maybe is more found money than anything else. And now we're moving into a new era of looking at partnerships in terms of there being a strategic asset, right? And so what I was hoping that you could all shed a little bit of light on is your thoughts about getting into a new market, thinking about partnerships as a way of getting into a new market, a way of starting something new as part of your business strategy, whether you're the nonprofit or whether you're a company's largest Chevron. Well, maybe I can start just a quick example from Liberia, a new market for us because it's a new country entry in terms of an exploration program to kind of explore for resources in their country. And on entry into that country, we created a development partnership of $10 million even before we've kind of discovered anything out there. So I think that was a new way of important to that country. We are a partner with them in resource extraction, being a partner with them and helping to solve some of their social problems in a small way that with a program was something we committed to. So that is as well a different mindset in terms of new country entry for us. And I think for us it's less a matter of new countries that we're entering into where there may be opportunities for that as well but really new communities are working with the communities that we've been working with in different ways. And so in many of the communities that we're working with where we have been dependent on grant funding, short-term funding, the ability to build and grow and have more sustainable activities within the communities that we're working in. So we've really shifted our whole thinking from thinking about how do we do great projects to thinking how do you do longer-term programs that you can measure longer-term impact on improvement in economic status within communities, really looking at having longer-term improvements in education and health, job creation, et cetera. And we can do that now because if you're really looking at these partnerships as longer-term and also having sustainable renewable sources of funding that comes with private sector and wealth creation and income generation, that's very different than only being dependent on three-year grant cycles where you can do a great project but at the end of it you feel like, well, you know you really haven't seen sustainable changes within communities. So it's probably more for us the opportunity to do things in very different ways and to think much more long-term. I think that NGOs that are doing development in particular countries can be a good source of connections, market knowledge but also workforce development. Again, that's often cited by certainly our members at the Initiative for Global Development and we're basically a network of major companies, CEOs, America, Europe, South Asia, who are Africa focused in partnering with African CEOs and companies to make major impactful investments, live lives, build communities. But part of what an NGO can do, I think, is help to tackle some of those entry-level issues of education, workforce development, again, market knowledge, connections. Those oftentimes make the difference between whether a market's going to be exploited or not and comparing markets in different countries, country to country. So that's an area where I think development professionals can be of good business value early on. And just, I guess to add to it, when I talk to our partners, our private sector partners, what I think they feel we can bring, one, is the opportunity to move into markets that they would not have because they don't have a foothold and these are the communities that we've been working with, but also to make sure that the other side, more the development side, doesn't get left out in the meantime because, as I said when I first started, I think, yes, economic growth is key to eliminating poverty, kind of a direct link, if you will, but it may not be equitable. It may not include whole communities. It may not think about all of the enabling factors that have to go into it so that growth is sustainable over the long haul. And I think that's what we can bring as development professionals is that piece of it combined with the economic engine to really make sure that when economic growth develop, it's developing in a way that's long-term sustainable and bringing communities that had systematically been left out into the process. And one point related to that, I think the other aspect is something that Rhonda talked about as we began. It's very important for businesses, for investors to be able to demonstrate that their entry into a market, their entry into a country, is for the long run because there are all too many actors who are interested in one-offs. And so when American companies, a company like Chevron, which has such a long history of investment and involvement can demonstrate that they're actually making an investment for the long haul, there's far better attention. The connections are better. There's a much greater opportunity, I think for getting some of those policy changes. A former mentor of mine used to say that people need to know that you care before they care what you know. These investments that get made when a Chevron comes in and invests in education or whatever it might be, that sends all the right signals about their interest in being in there for the long haul because there are other places in the world where businesses that come in may not show that same thing and it's often the story of state-owned enterprises. I think you're seeing more and more American companies like a Chevron making these major broad investments, showing their commitment, showing their involvement for the long haul and that makes all the difference in the world. Let me, we can get two questions. I've got my friend up here in the front row if we can get, and then I see Michael Levitt had a comment and we're gonna get these two and then we're gonna have to wrap it up. Lynn Dynamic with the Accenture Development Partnerships. I was really intrigued by the last panel's recommendation that there be a country-wide convening, almost like a strategy that would include the embassies, USAID, the private sector, the investors, people doing business there and the NGOs to come up with a framework. And it was terrific to hear in this panel that in fact this has been done maybe in smaller pieces through PEPFAR and then through what Chevron had done. Could you talk a little bit about what more has to happen in order to make that idea possible? And I think Ambassador Green, you would have some good ideas from the government side but I think the other two panelists might have some ideas too. Okay, then we'll just, Michael? Is it right behind you? Thank you. Well, I just wanted to comment that since, I guess somebody should represent USAID and having never worked for them. The difficulty is that the private sector is not a unified thing, it's not one company. And having benefited from working for many of them, I know what fabulous things they can do in supply chain but not all companies in all sectors approach things the same way. And I think one of the things that can be very helpful is figuring out how do we help government do a better job working with the private sector since one company comes in with one attitude, another company comes in even in the same sector with another attitude or another set of beliefs or a global policy on procurement. And I think helping, nobody can do more than supply chain can do for development and I think the more we can help government figure out how best to do that, the more effective it'll be. Why doesn't each of you take either one of those, either questions or respond to the comment? Mark, why don't we start with you? Sure, well I think as the question alluded to, the best programs and projects already doing precisely what you're suggesting and we should see more of it. And that is multi-sectoral bringing together of the different players including host country policy makers and NGOs for good development outcomes. Embassies are required to do mission strategic plans every year, they should be taken seriously. My own personal view is it should be public and it should be accountable with real benchmarks and real teeth added to it. And that is one of the best ways to tie actions to outcomes and to force everyone to play together. So I would say that. And then quickly on the whole idea of the partnerships, I think one of the best ways to take on any gap if you will, not just between USAID and the private sector but government and the private sector is to bring the private sector into program design. What often happens is programs are designed, they're ready to go, they start to implement them and then they turn around and say okay, what companies can we get to do this? Well, that's not a lining of interest. Instead, if we talk about again, what are the various interests, what are the public objectives we're trying to take on, I think business leaders would have a lot to suggest about how we might get there. How can we shape this program? What policies can we put in place? What framework can we design? And oh, by the way, if we do it, we're there with you, side by side. Rhonda. I just have to echo Mark's comments. The report deals with this directly and I think they come up with four simple rules with respect to getting that engagement going is basically set goals, streamline the process of engagement, engage early and often in those country plans and the fourth one I can't remember. So. But three is good, you know, someone's previous speaker said there's always three things. So really the first three are most important but I couldn't agree more, just early engagement with us in country, we're all sitting there trying to do good things. The earlier we can connect in the development of those plans that align with the country's plans as well, perfect. Yeah, I guess just to add a little bit, I think that the more this is seen as a priority, the more likely these things will happen and a report is only as good as it is also a plan for action. So I hope we will take this report, which I know the intention is, is to use this to actually to generate dialogue and to start thinking about putting these ideas in action. And so this is a great blueprint, but this is just step one. Now we'll take this and try to see what we can do to really generate excitement around it and a dialogue. You know, also to your point about, yes, companies can do what they wanna do, but companies are in the business of doing business and making profits. I think that the more this has become less of corporate social responsibility and core business means that this will stick because it's good for business. It is, you know, it's doing the right thing and it's making a difference for people. It's in a variety of ways, but it's also I think essential for future businesses. People recognize that this is essential to grow their businesses and that will help to generate and sustain this as well. Now that it's not just this, you know, let's give a couple of dollars, put it in a brochure and say we did something good, but this is really part of core business. Please join me in thanking the panel.