Thank you very much, because it's an extremely important question.
Perhaps the best way to answer is to provide some of the results of the research that we've been directed by Minister Verner to undertake. I refer to the pamphlets in terms of the tuberculosis results. That actually was grant funded, but it was grant funded where the results in terms of outcomes could be measured, and it was $200 per death averted.
If we look at the issue of measles death rates, this was actually work that was done with UNICEF that resulted in a reduction of measles deaths by almost half in Africa, and Lancet, the international journal, actually calculated extremely effective results and also that it was very cost-effective.
Similarly with the vitamin A distribution, where in fact vitamin A deficiency can be cured at a cost of 10ยข per child, and what we've done in terms of river blindness and what we've done in terms of salt iodization, all of which tend to have gone through a grant formula...we tried to ensure in each case that there was, as Minister Verner has noted, third-party verification from an auditing point of view, but increasing this focus that's so important on real results that we can measure and that we can actually determine in terms of cost-effectiveness. That's the way we're trying to ensure that we match some of the effectiveness and efficiency of grant modalities with actual oversight of results.
What I'd also note is that it's just part of the mix, and in different circumstances, different methods would be appropriate. We'd also be happy to provide more details, particularly in terms of issues such as the World Bank and other multilateral organizations, on the kinds of evaluations that are being done to ensure that we're actually getting results.