I would echo that: it's the capacity to be able to deploy quickly and to know that those resources are there for a longer period of time. But I'm going to be honest with you, because I think....
This is a challenge that we face all around the world. We are in Darfur in Sudan, dealing with the regime of Omar al-Bashir; we are in South Sudan in Malakal, which just imploded, doing protection initiatives with children; and we are in eastern Congo. Dealing with governments that are either unwilling or unable to respond to the protection needs of their own population is, unfortunately, par for the course in our line of work. The real answer to your question is that NGOs in and of themselves are not the solution, but they are part of a solution if it's handled correctly and if it's handled swiftly and efficiently.
Within that, I would say that if you look at the example of CAR, or at the example of Nigeria, even in those contexts where governments are unable or unwilling, with the right kinds of linkages that Lorna has already discussed, with the right kind of programming model that actually meaningfully engages those local actors, that immediately identifies those protection gaps and needs, that identifies those local actors—not international actors, but local actors—that are immediately able to respond and have legitimacy and the support of that local community, if you can actually work with Canadian organizations to build the capacity to respond much more effectively and efficiently and if they know that there is a longer more meaningful relationship and investment that's taking place, then you certainly can offset some of that tide.
It doesn't mean that you'll be able to prevent it in every instance, but it does mean that you have a strong enough presence and a greater degree of resiliency within the population to be able to at least address these issues meaningfully as they come up.