It's based both on need and opportunity. As I said, we train other local organizations on how to develop and adapt a service package that includes microfinance. There has to be a fairly active civil society in which there are local organizations that have sufficient management capability and the proper social motivation, from our perspective, to be good partners that are eager to learn what we know how to show them to do. Also, they need to have the capability of taking what they learn and expanding that to reach large numbers of people.
That opportunity to work with organizations that can reach large numbers of chronically hungry people is a very important concern. Clearly, within any country we would hope to partner with organizations that are reaching the very poor, as poor a population as they can. In an extremely poor country it might be problematic to have sufficient civil society with sufficient capability to partner with us. We can understand why that might be problematic for aid agencies, in particular, to work in such countries. But there are countries that are better off, and I mentioned that we work in India, the Philippines, and Mexico, which are clearly middle-income countries and yet have major pockets of poverty, even chronically hungry poor. It is the same with the Andean countries. Only in francophone west Africa and Ghana, where we work, is it very clear that we're reaching countries that have very large proportions of their population in the chronically hungry category.