 We've been talking about a lot of things today, but if we could just start out. You know, you are known for your rights-based approach to development. And obviously, the right to a job is a laudable goal, and we all want to work towards that. But on the road there, how do you think you can use some of the recommendations or the research and communications from RECOM to help make that goal a reality? Well, let me first say that I'm also very pleased to be here, and I put a lot of emphasis on getting here, which was impossible according to the schedule, because we have the Global Green Growth Forum in town as well, as you know, and heaps of visitors there. But I played great emphasis in coming here because I think RECOM is a very inspiring exercise. I really value the input, the analysis that we get, and I have even at some point participated a little bit. I don't know whether, Finn, have you cancelled my contract when I became a minister? If not, then I'm still on the employer's list of RECOM. Anyway, so it's privileged to be here. Every person in the world has a right to decent occupation, and I think that is something to kind of insist on, and be a little bit firmer on, that this, because not to say that it's an easily achievable goal, because it is not, and we can say that in Europe, we can see it in Denmark, and we can see it in Africa, and the World Development Report now gives us shocking figures on how bad it is in many parts of the world. So it's not because it does the trick, but it puts an obligation on all of us to do our outmost, to create those jobs and decent jobs and good jobs and green jobs in order to make sure that we can at least work towards fulfilling this right to occupation, to decent jobs. So that's why a rights-based approach even here, and it is a right, is a valuable starting point. Now it's not to say that it's easy, but I think the research here gives us, I can't say I've read all of it, but I have read some of the summaries, and the research, when I read it, it gave me a little bit of flashback to the 1973 ILO report on where we back then, of course, believed that if we just got the formal market to work, then everything would be fine, and we forgot the informal markets, and I think this dynamics that is also very much described in the research here is an important one to look at. Job creation is key to our strategy for development cooperation, and it is so for those very reasons that are stressed in the research here, how job creation is absolutely essential to create stable societies. Having just been to Egypt, where they need a million jobs a year in order to do something with 700,000 jobs just to cope with the new generations moving into the job market and 300,000 to do a little bit with unemployment and million jobs a year, and if you don't do it, the instability that this can cause to a country as Egypt now can be potentially extremely damaging, and these are the people who will go to Tahir Square again very soon. So I think putting more emphasis on creating jobs within our development corporation that can alleviate poverty but create jobs and growth at the same time I think is what is inspiring with the research, and that's what we need to know more about. Well, you know, the thing that got me excited just as a moderator was the whole concept of having the research and the communication, but also the focus on results that you can, news you can use. I know you have a journalistic past as well, but I'm just curious because you know one of the things you've said about job creation and working with the private sector, and of course Denmark has been a pioneer, and that's something that we've touched on during the day. How do you see that moving forward? Because you have quite a few successful sort of cooperations that go from all kinds of levels through the small and medium-sized employers up through Danita and mega funds we heard about earlier today. So how will you be using some of these results to sort of project or form your policy later on? Well, that's what I'm here to listen and learn exactly how can you advise us to go on, because I think we have a true dilemma here. We have many projects, micro projects also that really showcase how it can be done. You know, I've visited this flower production plant in Kenya where we have used the Nita business partnerships to form an alliance between the Danish flower production plant and the Kenyan one. They now will reach 150 new employees in Kenya, and they have added to the staff list in Denmark as well and an innovative partnership. It's good jobs because the women stand up when they do their flowers and they don't crawl on their knees as they do in most other plants in Kenya. It's green jobs because they use integrated pest management, and this is an inspirational thing. And I think it's worthwhile the investment, but it's 150 jobs and how do we reach 17 million jobs in Africa and such? So how do we then bridge that with policy changes that can really promote a conducive environment? And then how do you add in investment tools that can bring in the necessary investment? And I think we need to focus more on both those levels in our partnerships and our job creation efforts. There are so many barriers still to job creation in Africa. We are trying to put focus on an important part of it in promoting a new doing agriculture index as it was called. Yeah, you jumped ahead of me because I was about to ask you about that, but see if you can elaborate. Because I really, you know, being a farmer myself, and that's also why I can't use this hand, but being a farmer myself, I know, and the corner business world by profession, the agricultural policy you see in many African countries is still way from creating the environment that will really allow farmers to engage in agribusiness to develop. And we need to put clear cut focus on exactly that. And an agribusiness doing agriculture index can help us because it puts spotlight on the policies that need to be changed in order to promote employment. And there's no other factor than agriculture that can create so many jobs. And agribusiness has a huge potential in Africa. So here we try to create new tools and put a spotlight on the policies that are against that working against employment creation in the agricultural sector as such. That's one example. It will be a small investment, but if you can create the change that I think the doing business index have done in many countries, then it's going to be worth the while. Well, you actually have repeated one of the things that's come up very much today in terms of supporting agricultural productivity at different levels going up the chain. And also we were touching on the aid trade complementarity. I mean, is that something that you have a resonance with? I'm not asking you to tell us what policies you are going to make because obviously, you know, we're not at that stage yet. But how does all this information filter through to you? And talking to obviously people who are here and just using the kind of information that's coming because there's been an amazing conversation going on in this room today. And, you know, now you're a part of it. So I think we want to hear without specifics, but just how you see things going forward. But aid and trade is a critical link. And we do that as well, East African community. We support the integration of markets in the East African community. We help to lower formal trade barriers. We help to develop quality or joint standards that can enlarge the markets because having been a trade economist as well, you know, this market size matters a lot in job creation and attracting investments is absolutely crucial with market size. So East African community integration is one good example where we work with trademark East Africa and on the very concrete interaction engagement that can help build bigger markets and thereby promote investments and employment. Investment promotion as such is something that we are looking more and more at trying to find innovative financing modalities that can multiply our development finance. That's absolutely crucial as well because we know very well that development finance is going to be a small part of the overall financial flows that we need in order to promote green growth and decent employment. So how can we use development finance to multiply total investments in Africa, for instance? And the way to do it, I guess, is that the public finance, as we've done it in many occasions, has to take a little part of the risk help to identify the projects and then put in pension funds as additional investors and private companies on top of that. We do that with the investment fund for developing countries. IFU in Denmark, we do it internationally with more and more instruments that work in this manner and I think it's the very necessary way to do it. You see it in climate finance, it comes in big scale as well, this working modality and because obviously it's difficult to attract investors in many African or developing countries because the risk is a little bit higher and the projects are more difficult to identify, can we solve those two problems? I'm sure the investments will follow suit. Well, we actually had Nils Tusen here this morning who was instrumental with Bank Invest at the beginning and they ended up investing in Vietnam and he said there is no way they would have done it without Danita actually taking part and Danita only put one-tenth of the funds in so that was a pretty good kind of partnership to go forward. One of the things and you echo each other, Eib and you, in terms of this concept of aid as a catalyst and I'm just wondering how you see that development going on and I know that all donors like to think of the fact that it's not going to be an endless process, that there will be, let's not just say an exit strategy but a transition strategy and how do you think the two can actually fit together to make that happen? Obviously working with your partners in the recipient countries. Well, how it can fit together in there? No, what I'm saying is I'm not being clear so I take responsibility for that but this concept of aid is a catalyst and how then you get things to move forward so that you can actually look at a transformation policy and then ultimately an exit strategy because it's not something that should be an endless black hole. No, no, it shouldn't for sure and I think I think that the numerous examples of where it actually does fit together and where you manage to upgrade countries overall business environment that attracts investments, how we increasingly focus on creating taxation or building taxation systems and revenue systems that can lead to independence of nations and I think that transition is, 10 years ago we had almost no countries we could point to and say here, well, it actually worked but I think more and more they're coming in, they are standing in line actually to engage in this transformation and I think that's also why the policy level becomes much more important and now we engage in sustainable energy for all for instance a big global initiative in order to create access to energy, improve energy efficiency and promote renewable energy. The three goals set out by the Secretary General in his sustainable energy for all initiative. How do you do it? Well, the way they do it is actually they take, there will be probably 100 pilot countries and then you group them. Here you have a group, they are ready for investments, they have the conducive environment, they have investment rules in place, they have energy policies that are, that can promote investments in energy and clean energy. Here we are, what to do then? Well, you go for the next step that's project identification and then it's gathering together investment packages, it will be the World Bank, the EIB, the IFU, it will be private companies putting in those big scale investment packages and moving those countries to the next level. That's the ready countries, then you have countries where you lack policies, where you haven't got the right framework for investments, where you don't have energy policies or prices that are conducive for investments, you work on those obstacles and then you have the really perhaps bottom of the pyramid countries where you need to do a lot more in order to achieve that transformation. But I think if you go back, you know, much of this a few years ago it was in the wake and it was still not very clear, I think there's a much more, I said the standard of energy for all shows us now a much more focused attempt to move countries at various stages of their development pathway to the next step and engaging with all the kind of different tools that we need. Here we need investment packages, here we need project identification, here we need policy environments to change and here we need infrastructure to be built and I think we're much more systematic I guess than we have been before. And that question by the way was not a criticism, that was actually a laudatory because you're doing well. I guess I'm coming across as aggressive, I've been so sweet to everybody else all day. I believe in a rights-based approach, you know, you have to keep me accountable. But just one last thing before I start letting other people ask you questions, but you know the one thing, I mean Denmark, this was the home of RECOM because it started here, but the one, there have been a number of themes we've heard repeated over and over and over today, but the need for more data is one that keeps coming up, that we just do not have the information we need. And do you think, I mean you're already investing in RECOM, but do you think that this is something, because there's no immediate return. If you're a politician, you know you have to sort of be accountable to your constituents all the time. How do you sell the need to invest in something like research to your constituents, to your government, to your organizations. And I'm assuming you think it's important because you're already supporting RECOM. I'm making an assumption and if I'm wrong just sort of bat me over the head virtually. But I think knowledge is absolutely crucial. Well some years back I had lunch with Shanta Devarajan, who many of you know, the African director of the World Bank, and he said to me now for years, you know, he had been sitting next to African statesmen whispering into their ears what they should do and trying to give them good advice on how they could adjust and promote projects in order to create change. And he said, especially that part about sitting next to a president whispering into his ears, he would never do it again. He was finished, end of story, he would never do it again because he said it doesn't work. It only works if you get the right constituency working inside the country. And how do you do it? Well, he said, I do good research. I do good analysis. And if I can do good analysis and then I insist from the very beginning that I will disseminate it to everybody. I'll send it out, I will fly in with a chopper and distribute it all over the country. And then when people pick it up, they will say, look at this, we could do better, we could do differently, we could improve. And with that as a tool, you can create change. And that is very much a rights-based strategy as well. Information is everything, you know. And that's why we invest in research. That's why we invest in information. And that's why I expect and haven't read the studies yet, haven't heard to the good discussion, which I look forward to getting EAP to translate to me when we can sit down now and hopefully look at the seminar and say, what did we learn from here? Then we will fly choppers all over Africa and disseminate it and spread it out. And that's going to create change. So that's why we invest. And that's why we engage with the researchers and having been at the university for many years, working with Finn and under his great leadership at the University of Copenhagen have only made me even more determined to do good research, good analysis and create change by promoting it. Great. Now, I don't know if you're more comfortable sitting down or standing up. I'm joined the panel now. But I think there are probably a couple of questions that people might have. And you have one of these little voting machines, except I haven't had time to explain to you how to do it. Johnny will give you a quick lesson. All right, folks. And this includes the panel. We're getting into wrap up time. But also, do we have any questions? It's not every day you get to ask the minister a question. So what I'm going to start with Mr. Gonzalo Cede. Gonzalo. Where is that? Okay. Well, I come from South America. And I want to start my question with a statement that we have in South America, because we are close of this date. In October 12th of 1492, the indigenous of South America realized that we were poor and we were naked. Yeah. I'm starting with this because we are being talking about development. And in South America, indigenous culture doesn't want development as the Occidental view. Okay. Gonzalo? Gonzalo? Yeah. One sec. Slowly. Nobody can understand the words you're saying. Okay. In South America, indigenous culture doesn't want the development at the Occidental view. The difference is how to create the right development policy when the pressure of the world for growing goes against the will of the population on indigenous for achieve a different kind of development. I say this in the context in all across South America. Indigenous are being moved because they are in the land or where the water is available for mining, mining and for electric generation. And they are getting moved because of an economic factor. Okay. Gonzalo, thank you. I'm sorry that I think everybody will have taken that on board. Astrid, I'm going to miss your second name, Linda Anderson. Astrid. Yes. Hello. I would just like to know how you find a balance between the fact that development takes a lot of time. Like Gianni mentioned, he both mentioned Gondvi and Napoleon. So our development is a product of many years. And then the fact that you're a part of a government who only sits for four years and therefore needs quick results in order to gain success. Re-election. Well, first on the question on indigenous people being skeptical about growth as we might see it in our part of the world. I think it's a valid point. And I have been discussing it of course also when I went to Bolivia and with Morales. And you know, there are of course some different notions of growth here that needs to be understood. But I have also stood with indigenous people and the Alciplano of Bolivia and seeing their aspirations to have a better life and improving their income and earning a better income on producing quinoa for world markets. And so I'm not quite sure that you can't see a bridge between indigenous peoples, of course, rights, their cultural heritage, their aspirations to live with a greater respect for nature than what we have done in our part of the world. And then a green growth pattern where you actually create better living conditions and more employment. I think it can be bridged, but I do understand that there are sensitivities in doing so and for sure. Also in global discussions on everything from climate change to green growth, we see these differences popping up. But I think there are ways, especially within a green growth strategy, where you can have these different aspects of a growth pattern to come together. How do you do long-term planning when you have short-term elections? I think that was the question, wasn't it? It's basically if you're a politician and you're in for four years, how do you make plans that might need 10? How do you balance the long-term needs of development with the short-term needs of getting reelected? Yeah, well I've said from the very beginning my intention is to stick for 16 years. But I know it is difficult. And of course I see the dilemma constantly in my daily work because you need to be, my job is outside and the voters are in Denmark, so in a very practical sense I have the dilemma on my daily work. And I do reckon that it is difficult. Also because, and you can see this government, right? What did we say from the beginning? We, and you heard the discussions, we said from the very beginning that we were looking at 2020, the long-term reforms, the long-term perspective. That was the vision of this government coming into office. And have we been, have the voters reacted positive to that vision? Well, no. You can't say so. So our kind of attempt to do long-term thinking and reforms for 2020 came, didn't come out well with Danish voters for sure. And now if I'm sure for the next year or so you'll hear everybody talking about tomorrow, even today, and how we can help all of you in the short term. And so there is a dilemma. You have to build it into your policy planning. You know, you have to force it into the way you think. And that goes for the international community as well. And for the international, you know, we have to be able to look at 2030 and 2050 being politicians. And that's a decision we need to take together. And I think we've taken it in Denmark. And that's why we are coming out with a number of favorable reforms that have done so for the past 20 years that actually builds a solid economy and decent employment still, although there are 6% unemployed people in Denmark. But it is definitely a dilemma. And I guess, even more internationally and even more dealing with sustainable development and sustainable growth, where there are a number of factors working against the long term planning, the investments for the longer perspective, and the policies they may hurt you in the short term, but benefit you tremendously in the longer one. You're a politician, so you're obviously a communicator. You've been a journalist. Is this a communication issue, do you think? Because it seems to me that the world these days is very short term. Businesses, politics is, you know, everybody wants something now. Is this something that you think as a minister is part of your mandate to actually communicate? Obviously, you want to focus on stuff you can do. But is it important for you to actually not just communicate with your constituents in terms of your voters, but perhaps the people you deal with in other countries, to get everybody to recognize the importance, not just of looking at the short term, but of looking at how things will actually develop? Well, you have to build it into the way you do planning as well, and the way you measure as well. Simple things like, you know, having a too high discount rate is going to, of course, take you to the short term instead of the long term. We are working on solving that problem in Denmark, making sure that our measure of growth incorporates natural capital and revenue flows that comes from natural capital is a way of ensuring that we measure in a manner that allows us for long term planning and not only the short term perspective. So you can do a lot in communication and by, as you say, or by building incentives into your planning cycle that forces you to think longer term. And we haven't done that for sure. And of course, demographic transitions like those we see in the world and the World Bank report on the future need for employment creation. Scary. Scary. And that definitely should be built into our policy perspectives, you know, so that we really have a long term planning for job creation that meets the demographic transition that's going to put pressure on all of us and will create tremendous instability in the world if we don't do it. And how do we measure that instability in the future up against your term gains in terms of creating growth right now? You know, that's a big challenge for us. And I hope research will tell us how to do it. As Martin said, there is no silver bullet, but at least that means you can't hold the gun to your head. Sorry, that was a joke. Ole Rasmussen, and sorry, Ulle, I think I mispronounced your name. No, that's just perfectly fine. So my name is Ole Rasmussen. I work for Dan Church, it's Danish NGO. And then I'm also a PhD student. So I have a question for Mr. Christian Frisbach concerning the intersection between research and practice. So we heard earlier Mortens say that he would like more evidence based development policy. And I think if I was not mistaken that Johnny actually said it was helpful to have a researcher next to him at some point, I think it was in Mozambique. So you also said that you like to support this type of interaction. It occurs to me that there's a lot of research and development going on in Denmark. Certainly there's a lot of policy, but very often in two very different spheres. And step number one for more evidence based policy must be to have these people to meet. And I think this is one occasion where they meet. So my question to you is, do you plan other such initiatives where you force practitioners and researchers to meet on development issues? Thank you. Force them? I don't think it's a good… No, I think what he means by force is the fact that we're in the room and everybody's communicating. That means you have to answer his question. I hope most of you came voluntarily and that's the way to go about it. I think that has to be, we need to inspire each other. And I can't say I have a quick fix for how to do it, but I think if you go back just 10 years there was a much more kind of division between those who dealt with development practice and they were kind of development practitioners and had knowledge that had to do with how did you do development. And then you had kind of those who knew stuff about energy or water or health researchers over here. Today I see it coming much more together. And a lot of the research that we want to finance now is not research that's done in isolation from the core. For instance, take health. We support a lot of health research with international dimensions, but it's done in a research environment where they do research on Danish health problems at the same time and try to have those interlinkages. I think we see a globalization of research environments and they will inspire us all along the chain from Denmark to Mozambique hopefully and thereby bringing in a much closer relationship between researchers and development practitioners in the future. I think that's the way to go in many ways. We still have a need for core development research as RECOM and this audience is very much also an example of but we also need to have a much closer kind of to globalize our research institutions and don't because if you want to do water efficiency, you can learn from what we did in Denmark and you can use it some of it at least in Mozambique or in Ethiopia. And that link between strong research environments with a global outreach I think can bridge the knowledge gap that you talk about. I'm going to jump in here for a moment because I have a simple observation to make is that earlier in the day whenever we had an ability for the panel to join the audience to press their little green buttons to ask a question, they were usually among the top five and suddenly they've gone quiet. So gentlemen, Madam, our one woman, thank you Karen for being up there. Don't forget you too can push your button and mine. Rasmus Ludvigsen. Rasmus, where are you? Yep. Very good pronunciation. Thank you. I would just like to ask because it's been mentioned here before sometimes during today about industrial policy and developing countries or governments of developing countries to be specific about choosing specific sectors to focus on and so on. I would like to ask you because I know as you said you mentioned yourself, you're trade economist and so on. And in that field, ideas about comparative advantages and so on have been very fashionable and they sort of sometimes go against the idea of industrial policy because you know right now developing countries might not have advantages in sectors other than for example agriculture and so on. And we've been talking about the need for economic transformation. So I'd like to ask you what is your position on developing countries sort of focusing their budgets or what you can say on specific sectors and choosing winners as some like to call it. What is your position on that? Well, I think I need some help from the panel probably here, but I don't think choosing winners is necessarily an easy thing to do or the right track to take. Conductive business environments are crucial. I know I've been a big fan of Paul Krugman and the geographies of trade and his issues with promoting and industrial policy where you try to to build those clusters that can then give you a competitive advantage because you have a certain you build the Silicon Valley or the medical valley that we try to build in this region or whatever valley you try to construct by targeted industrial policy. I think Krugman's conclusion of all that is in any case you know if you try to do it you won't be the only one. And that's the one warning sign and if everybody does it there are no advantages to doing it whatsoever. So I don't think it's the right approach to take for many developing countries and also because they simply do not have the means to do so. They don't have the means to promote an aggressive industrial policy in picking winners and doing everything from infrastructure and research and perhaps even targeted subsidies building business environments that they don't have the means to do it and then you can just it's not going to work for you. I'm going to cut you off briefly because I'd like you to answer a couple more questions and suddenly the panel has gotten a little bit more woken up but first of all because he was in the queue for a long time. Lars Anderson. Lars Sigurd Anderson. Where are you Lars? Pardon? I'm sitting right here ma'am but I don't have anything to comment. Okay sorry you were on my list. Ben Tharp. Thank you very much Christian for both a very constructive but also very engaged and sort of optimist way of approaching the kinds of challenges that we are facing. I share that very much and I commend you for maintaining that. Let me also maybe just say one word about clever politicians. It is that you do what is right not just what gets you re-elected but I have one sort of worry in discussing results versus knowledge which I wonder whether you would be able to elaborate just a little bit. It's very clear that in RECOM we are trying to do research and we are trying to communicate and we are trying to do both and we are serious about it but could you sort of elaborate a little bit how you sort of see this results-based management kind of issue how that sort of relates to this because sometimes we get a little bit confused when we're talking about knowledge on the one hand results on the other and how that sort of relates to this longer term research process. If you have anything you could add in or kick in I would appreciate it. If not we can take it another time. Well I'm not quite sure I see the dilemma. I hope all of you create knowledge and I trust that it's going to give us better results. So I'm not quite sure but I see the dilemma as clear as you might but obviously I'm a great fan of free research you know and I think the university policy that we are promoting now is giving universities more leverage in planning and doing their own research in a manner that makes sense and because I think if we put having been at a university for quite some years also myself if we put everything into small pockets and the competitive research schemes that have the freedom of researchers and the impact of research is probably going to diminish in the long trip that's my fear at least. But on the other hand I guess the outcome is very targeted exercise right. Results with a clear focus on promoting and analyzing the results of development impacts or interventions and there I guess what I've seen and what I've heard and what I've learned I think has given us good insight on the macroeconomic level on the micro interventions on how we can do better and I think that's what we needed. So I would thank you all for that and two more quick questions and then I know you need to escape. Tetsushi. This morning everybody in this room participated in an opinion survey using this machine and then it turned out that people here have very strong concern about governance corruption in developing countries. So I'd like to know if your organization has any good ideas about how to reduce corruption in developing countries and how to improve the governance there. How to induce corruption. It's okay the brown paper envelope's waiting on top. Yeah okay I think I understand the question. Now I'm a big fan of what you can call well social accountability you know. I think the only way in the long run to combat corruption is by allowing people themselves to keep an eye on what your government is doing and that's key to a right spaced approach. I've seen so many good examples of how it can be done around in the world where you buy transparency in budgeting, transparency in revenue flows, transparency in funding mechanisms and then an active engagement by everything from an ombudsman or state auditors, civil society, the free press. That's how you can do something about corruption and I'm a transparency freak in terms of that and I think that is absolutely essential. We can never ever and we have made that mistake made too many times try to control every single penny spent out of Copenhagen. We can't do it and sending out our auditors is probably never gonna make the trick anyway but if we can build out that kind of transparency and social accountability in individual countries that makes a lot of a difference and I've seen it so many places and that's the long term and that's why we actually sometimes I would even argue for loosening our ties on the funding. If we can insist on transparency strengthening financial flows of financial management then I would lose my tie and even be willing to risk a corruption scandal somewhere in the world if it can really lead to a longer term promotion of those structures within a society that eventually can lead to decent financial management in the longer term. One quick anecdote before I give Martin the microphone or he's got his own microphone but give Martin the floor. There was a story of development aid which was going astray and it was on a very micro level so in a village so what they started doing was putting up signs saying we have given x amount of dollars to where have you seen the results and that created a lot of accountability rather quickly actually. Martin Ramah. In fact this is more a comment than a question I wanted and it goes very much in the direction of your response on the issue of industrial policy which is one that we try to face in the world development report on jobs. Every chapter finishes with what we call a difficult question. There is a chapter that basically makes the point that the jobs talents are very different across countries and so the question is should we go for a targeted investment climate and the immediate answer was well is that industrial policy and that's one possible reaction when we think about targeting policies we tend to think about sectors not only defined as sectors and picking winners. On the other hand we all tend to agree with ideas like supporting the participation of women in paid employment, supporting the development of competitive cities or supporting small and medium enterprises which are forms of targeting in one case is by gender in one case is by location in one case is by size not by sector and so we came up with a response that we very much along the lines of what the minister said is if you know what your job's challenge is and there are clear things that you can do to remove the constraints like getting more women into paid work one and two there is no risk of the policy being captured by narrow interest groups then go ahead but a lot of the narrowly defined industrial policies don't don't pass that test. Gary Fields. I thought we weren't having any more. Well he's not answering because it was a comment so I'm yeah more comments would be I would be I want to put you on the spot if I may and that is that one of the the things that I like to push for myself is to have a single well-defined objective above all else and one I put forth this morning when I spoke was jobs to reduce poverty and I heard you make a number of other comments green growth decent employment sustainable development rights based approaches and things my so my question to you is if you could target one of those goals above all others what would be the one that you would target one goal well sustainable growth but but again it's a it's a broad term I don't think you can pick a specific goal and see it in isolation for instance now let's let's say I'm I've just come from the global green growth forum and there we discussed now how can you really create a green growth pattern now if you want to do that in a country like Nigeria one of the things to do is definitely to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies in Nigeria now how do you get rid of fossil fuel subsidies in Nigeria if you do it like that get your energy subsidies if you do like that you're gonna get public riot and and people will go to the streets and throw you out immediately so you have them to look at building social welfare schemes in the first place you have to engage in making sure that there are some kind of social safety net it can be social conditional cash transfers or pension schemes or health schemes and then if you build such a structure then you can perhaps get rid of your fuel subsidies and you have to see that in coordination and the World Bank has done a good work on it actually and shown that if you really do it correctly you can create social safety nets with the same poverty impact as energy or food subsidies for one-fifth of the price so every economic argument is there but you have to see it in coordination there's that's why an inclusive green economy that's the goal you know but it's you have to see the most that you can't say which a specific policy is where to go or a specific intervention is is going to solve it it has to be seen it in its entirety and inclusive green growth is I guess what's what our key policy target is in our in our strategy do you have time for one more I think so Henrik Nielsen no you guys push the button thank you literally at the same time I'm here I'm here I would like blind hi hi hi yes sorry Henrik you were there I'm from the Danish NGO forum our members are facing new demands when it comes to results based management and effectiveness and we don't have many problems with that because we think we are quite good at what we're doing so far my problem is that when you look at the the Danita programs within a job creation and growth results according to your own evaluations are much more mixed are you going to set up these results based allocation mechanisms for the jobs and employment programs in the future as well that's my question yes I I think we will increasingly focus and try to look and I hope that Recom will help identify where we can with our interventions create jobs and where we can do it in an efficient manner and I think results matters just as much there I think in many ways we've been in a transition and I I totally agree with you that many of the kind of interventions that have been targeted towards creating jobs at a firm level many of them have not been successful many of them have failed many of them have also gone quite well and I've seen it but you must also admit that if you look at the past 10 years well five years ago the business environment in many African countries was far from where it is today the conducive environment that under which these programs perform have improved a lot in many countries and I do hope and expect that we will see better results from these more targeted business partnership interventions but they should be scrutinized just as any other program that we have I totally agree with you and we have actually started a small exercise to look a little bit more focused on whether we achieve the results that we we should in this sector as well because definitely it is not it should live up to the same criteria as that any other intervention should and I hope the researcher can tell us more about is it if you do those micro level interventions on the firm level you know what are the conditions upon which you will achieve success you know your evaluation reports should be helping with that information too right it should for sure okay well we're going to start now actually doing a little bit of a wrap-up and we hope you'll take part a little bit but I understand at some point you might have to sneak out so in fact I see somebody over there panicking like yes yes but it was inspiring to be here and I will definitely look into the results I will bring in my research gene again and dive into some of the results and I've done so already and I thank you all for the inspiration you've given us today here and and look forward to the continued partnership thank you very much for joining us