With regard to RBM, the results-based management framework, obviously this is a very important accountability mechanism all across government. However, when you're talking about development, it isn't necessarily always the most suitable accountability tool. Often, rather than showing that x amount of funding led to x result, you're not trying to achieve a result but prevent things from getting worse. It may be that the situation is here, it's about to go down to here, and you make sure it's gone here, as opposed to increasing and having a result to show for it.
How do you prove a negative? How do you prove that, without us, 40,000 more people would have starved but now only 5,000 starved? To put it very bluntly, it's very hard, in an RBM framework, when you're working on the ground in a country, on development particularly, to necessarily have all those indicators and outcomes nicely aligned ahead of time and within the timeframes.
In terms of an accountability mechanism, I agree, absolutely, we need to be accountable for the money, but is there a way to find something that in the field of development might be a little more flexible?