—because there's no doubt that the target that was set 40 to 45 years ago by the Pearson Commission of 0.7% of gross national income is one that we at UNICEF still believe in, and we still believe we should try to make it. It doesn't mean we should just scatter the money willy-nilly. I think what we have seen as an excellent example is from the United Kingdom, which has said 0.7%; Prime Minister Cameron said that. He's kept it there in the last couple of years. To go from where they were to 0.7% has been difficult, because you have to be able to spend it wisely, as I say, and we recognize there's been a process that U.K. aid—as they now call DFID—has done.
But we at UNICEF see that it has meant that more assistance reaches the poorest people, because frequently the private sector is not enough, because poor people are often even out of the market. So that increased ODA spent wisely on women and children and the poorest makes a huge difference.
At the same time, we support the efforts that have been made by the Government of Canada to get these other sources of funding, because we need the other sources of funding as well, but ODA is still crucial to global development.