During the consultations on Growing Forward 2, which directly led into decisions made on the programming, there was a great deal of interest in the industry of having a five-year horizon for some of the funding. I'll use an example in the malting barley industry. If you're going to develop a variety to suit the needs of the consumers, you can't do it in one growing season. It's the same as if you're looking at new methods for managing pests or adding nutrients. A five-year horizon is better. They actually in some cases would like ten, but a five-year horizon is better.
Essentially, in the federal programming, certainly the clusters or the five-year ones have a specific date. For other programming, funding is available through the full five-year period, and there is a mechanism where there can be continuous applications by the industry over that period of time. I would suggest it's not expected that the money for those industry-led projects would be all allocated immediately, but there would be flexibility to allow the industry, on a continuous basis, to identify their priorities.