No, I would just totally concur. I think part of it has been that there has been some ongoing dialogue of late between what has been the traditional humanitarian arm and the more long-term development arm. I think it's really a struggle in terms of what is the bridge between the two, what does that bridge look like, and how could the government seek to understand the type of funding mechanisms that would somehow bridge the two? Because very traditionally, they've been quite separate.
What we know, when we look at the millennium development goals, is that the failure to meet a lot of those goals has largely been because a majority of the extreme...those who are categorized as in extreme poverty, and also the conflict-ridden states, where the majority of the populations are living. Those are the exact contexts in the exact states that will receive bursts of short-term humanitarian funds, including UN pooled funds, etc. But there can be huge lapses between those bursts and when a more stabilized source of funding comes in. Then you can see very easily the return to conflict and how these situations become very cyclical and very protracted.