On how we do it--and of course it's more or less the same, I would say, for CIDA, although CIDA uses a third party—we rely on our presence in the field. We engage with partners who are appropriate for us. Together with them we analyze the needs, the scope of the needs, and the modalities of any kind of engagement. We do some sort of feasibility analysis before we engage in any kind of programming ourselves. As far as I understand it, CIDA sometimes sends out experts, consultants, to do feasibility studies before the programming shapes up and takes project form.
In the beginning in any country you need to have consultations with the government, depending sometimes on the centralized nature of the government. Then as a donor country—not only in terms of money but in terms of the expertise you provide—your expertise must make sense for the country and not overlap. It must be in harmony with the other initiatives. That has been one of the problems in the past, before donor communities made it clear that they either collaborate and coordinate their efforts on the ground, or there are donor meetings that do it. So when we cooperate with other donors, like in Ukraine, we go to these meetings and try to make sure that any initiatives are in harmony with or in collaboration with other initiatives.
I would like to emphasize one thing here that's very important. The beneficiary country's people—human resources—are usually very much in short supply. Those people who can engage with you and with whom you can work are in high demand from other donor communities. So you really have to make sure you don't waste that very valuable human resource by pulling them in different directions.